| > Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. > Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. > Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. > Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. > Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. So he argues that there is a first mover, a first efficient cause, an independent necessary being, a cause of all other beings, and an intelligent director but he just assumes that each of those things is the god he believes in who has a son named Jesus, etc... Well, maybe his assumption is wrong and those things are actually aspects of Mother Nature, or an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or The Five Fairies. How could we possibly tell the difference? |
And if we assume or believe that there is a single cause for everyting, how does the rest of the stuff like " must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God" follow from that?
They BELIEVE there is a single cause for everything but why do they believe that? I assume because they WANT to believe it. But even so what makes them believe that "single cause" is "the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection"? What about all the imperfections? Oh, it must be the Devil. Then why did God create Devil? (Or is Devil perhaps a 2nd God?)
It seems we just created "Devil" because we could not otherwise explain "God". And all the while we were quite confident that, we simply cannot be wrong. :-)