Quote:
|
If it has a beginning, it needs a cause.
|
why?
and why do the terms beginning and cause need to be singular, even if you are right?
this seems close to tautology, in the same way as the ontological proof is--that is the question is framed by prior assumptions--once you see the assumptions, the proof is obviously tautological (outside that framework, the claim to tautology is meaningless, btw)---so you approach the question already believing in god, with all that this belief entails concerning assumptions re. unicty of Cause (god)--which presumably would be linked to the claim that there is a single design, etc etc etc---and so your argument simply repeats its premises.
i am not sure but this question (the op) seems particularly amenable to this kind of response--the question of origin appears to entail one of cause---but as both are speculative and bring with them no feedback loops that would disrupt the simple projection backward in time of beliefs held in the present, it seems to me that the whole thread is set up to generate a juxtaposition of tautological statements.