Changes

[[Aristotle]] first of all does prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible. An infinite chain of events disagrees with science. Second of all the cosmological argument is compatible with the God of the Bible, unlike the other editor says, he/she must not be aware that [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Maimonides]] and others used it to argue that there is a [[God]]. --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 20:23, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

[[Aristotle]] first of all does prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible. An infinite chain of events disagrees with science. Second of all the cosmological argument is compatible with the God of the Bible, unlike the other editor says, he/she must not be aware that [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Maimonides]] and others used it to argue that there is a [[God]]. --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 20:23, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:Where does Aristotle prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible?  The argument for the Unmoved Mover is in Metaphysics Lambda (ch. 7), but the claim against an infinite chain of contingent causal interactions is an assertion that such an idea is merely presupposed in ch. 6, never actually argued for.  If I've missed something, by all means, point me to the source.

:Where does Aristotle prove that an infinite chain of events is impossible?  The argument for the Unmoved Mover is in Metaphysics Lambda (ch. 7), but the claim against an infinite chain of contingent causal interactions is merely presupposed in ch. 6, never actually argued for.  If I've missed something, by all means, point me to the source.

: Furthermore, the claim is not that the entity posited by the various forms of the Cosmological Argument is ''incompatible'' with the Christian God, merely that the CA does not go far enough to prove that it ''is'' the Christian God.  God certainly is non-contingent, existed at the beginning of the universe, and is sufficient to explain the universe, but those three properties do not add up to all that God is. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

: Furthermore, the claim is not that the entity posited by the various forms of the Cosmological Argument is ''incompatible'' with the Christian God, merely that the CA does not go far enough to prove that it ''is'' the Christian God.  God certainly is non-contingent, existed at the beginning of the universe, and is sufficient to explain the universe, but those three properties do not add up to all that God is. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 20:33, 4 July 2008 (EDT)