Naturalistic Theism: Cosmological Proofs III
By
HG
on April 3, 2007 at 04:52 pm
4 Comments
So far the cosmological proofs advanced are:
1. What was first must have always been.
2. What has always been was not of another.
3. What is not of another is independent and all else dependent.
(What couldn’t make itself, nor was made by any other, its being depended not on its choice, nor on any thing dependent of it, hence, that it exists is necessary.)
1. What was first must have always been.
2. What has always been was not of another.
3. What is not of another is independent and all else dependent.
...Whence also it is plainly consequent, Fourthly, that such a Being [what was first, not of another, and independent of all] is necessary, or doth necessarily exist: that is, that it is of such a nature as that it could not or cannot but be. For what is in being, neither by it’s own choice, nor any others, is necessarily. But what was not made by itself, (which hath been shown to be impossible), nor by any other, (as it hath been proved something was not), it is manifest, it neither depended on its choice, nor any other’s that it is.
(What couldn’t make itself, nor was made by any other, its being depended not on its choice, nor on any thing dependent of it, hence, that it exists is necessary.)
And therefore, its existence is not owing to choice at all, but to the necessity of its own nature. Wherefore it is alway by a simple, absolute, natural necessity; being of a nature to which it is altogether repugnant and impossible ever not to have been, or ever to cease from being. And now having gone thus far, and being assured, that hitherto we feel the ground firm under us; that is having gained full certainty, that there is an eternal, uncaused, independent, necessary Being, and therefore actually and everlastingly existing; we may advance one step further.
And with equal assurance add, Fifthly, that this eternal, independent, uncaused, necessary Being, is self active; that is (which is at present meant), not such as acts upon itself, but that which hath the power of acting upon other things, in and of itself, without deriving it from any other. Or at least that there is such a Being as is eternal, uncaused, &c, having the power of action in and of itself. For either such a Being as hath been already evinced is of itself active or unactive, or hath the power of action of itself or not. If we will say the latter, let it be considered what we say, and to what purpose we say it… --John Howe (1630-1705).
Rob
Move_Zig
Bullwinkle
likwidshoe
RebTex
Oswaldo
Sparkie Arbuckle
Proof