tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post3174579145051221047..comments2023-04-05T09:07:08.419-07:00Comments on Fides et Ratio: The Argument from Motion, Craig-styleAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-5994115496292544662010-08-10T15:06:55.449-07:002010-08-10T15:06:55.449-07:00That's the kind of response I generally antici...That's the kind of response I generally anticipate whenever I listen to one of Craig's debates. He would say that we don't know of any immaterial (non-mental) principles that stand in causal relations, and so the best explanation is that the cause of the universe is a mind. I'm not necessarily persuaded that this is a good argument, though.<br /><br />With respect to your last question, Thomas makes use of both inductive and deductive arguments throughout his writings (as does Aristotle). One may argue deductively that a First Mover exists, and I have done so elsewhere, but I also find that inductive analogies (e.g. the watch and the train) usually connect with people more.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-9503622276092461982010-08-10T12:48:36.098-07:002010-08-10T12:48:36.098-07:00"Of course, if one can coherently propose ano..."<i>Of course, if one can coherently propose another alternative, then the argument about the First Mover being a mind will not necessarily follow.</i>"<br /><br />Those Who Need At All Costs To Avoid God can generally be counted upon to attempt to avoid the conclusion of this argument by asserting that the First Mover could be a "principle" or a "force," and so that it does not necessarily follow that the First Mover in a mind.<br /><br />And, when one points out that a "principle," being an abstraction, has no causal power, and that a "force" is among That To Be Explained, they will "reason," "<i>Well, it could have been something else.</i>"<br /><br /><br />"<i>Therefore, given the motion of the cosmos, it follows via induction that a First Mover exists.</i>"<br /><br />Really, induction?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com