Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
Just to be fair, general scientific consensus can be coherent or incoherent. Just because it is the consensus does not mean very much.
Next, if we agree that the universe began to exist, then we can start asking what began it, or what caused it (and what characteristics that causer/creator has)
For the record, I was only bringing up the scientific consensus as being the materialistic take on the matter, not on what everyone should believe. Secondly, yeah, we could begin to ask what caused it, but we cannot get much further than that. As I have been saying, all the cosmological argument proves is a first cause, and nothing else.
My point here, is that there are no objections to ruling all alternatives out and then sticking with what is left. There is no need for positive vs. negative proof. There is just need for proof and justification.
I understand the methodology you are presenting: if the supernatural did not exist, then materialism would be the only option remaining, and thus it alone should be believed. I am saying instead that the fact that we do not certainly know that the first cause is supernatural is not tantamount to the fact that nothing supernatural exists. Consequently, there is no necessary materialism.
His point, is to see what he can argue and prove using just General Revelation. The question we have before us, is how far can he go.
...and he cannot go further than "first cause", or anywhere near "God" -- all he can posit is that there was some first cause, and offer nothing more about the nature of this first cause.
He is not pretending anything. The issue is simply appealing to what people know by SD and Natural Revelation.
He is falsely saying that causation entails God's existence, when all it entails is a first cause. Even if he doesn't mean it, he is still saying so. He is not presenting a theistic proof in the least.
You stated, "Let us say that Aquinas 'proves' that God is eternal. That is somehow false because God is more than just eternal?"
My answer: If he were to argue that an eternal being existed, and he called it God (rather than "an eternal being"), then his argument would be false. It would not be false that an eternal being existed in that situation, however.
Why would it be false? Is something else eternal besides God? Is something else infinite besides God? If not, then when one refers to eternal, one is referring to God, right?
God is much more than just eternal. Therefore, if he were to argue that the existence of something eternal was tantamount to the existence of God, then he would be making a false argument.
Nothing else is eternal or infinite besides God (in reality), but people can still offer concepts of infinite entities which rival God. In fact, if he were to say that the existence of an eternal being equaled God's existence, then he would be presupposing that the Bible is accurate in its portrayal of the living God; i.e. he would be presupposing the truth of the Bible.