The evidence from causality for the existence of God
I read what you wrote about the proof of God’s existence from causality, that in order not to fall into infinite regression, we need to assume causality only for things that are familiar to us. And I didn’t understand one point. After all, David Hume showed that causality does not come from an observational source. And if so, why should the scope of the principle of causality be only for things that are familiar to us from experience?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
First, it is familiar to us from experience. Not with the senses but with the mind. See Tory on intuition.
Second, if I need to qualify the principle of causality, I prefer to qualify it for things that are not in my experience. Because for the things in my experience I know that there is causality (from my intuition).
In short, you need to ask yourself whether you accept the principle of causality and why. If you don’t accept it at all, then the discussion doesn’t begin. If you do, then why? Because your intuition tells you that this is where the world is going. So it says that it’s talking about the world we know. Therefore, if you want to exclude something, it’s likely to be something that’s not from our world.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer