-
oppose 20% · Bertrand Russellmoderated to 80%; argued down by 60%
by Brainix on 2005-12-16 19:26:52 -
oppose 100% · Re: Bertrand Russellmoderated to 100%; argued down by 0%
by yqbd on 2007-12-17 06:02:01Bertrand Russell's problem is with what he think the First Cause argument is. He writes that it is "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.", but it's more like "everything that has a beginning has a cause" or "every effect has a cause". The First Cause is not an effect, so the First Cause does not have a cause. -
support 0% · Re: Bertrand Russellmoderated to 0%; argued down by 0%
by anonymous on 2013-06-03 17:32:49If we agree that all effects must have a cause, then by necessity there must be an un-caused cause.
summary
title: 'Re: Bertrand Russell'
text: 'If we agree that all effects must have a cause, then by necessity there must be an un-caused cause.'
tags:
date: 2013-06-03 17:32:49
submitter: anonymous
effective: 0
support: 0
oppose: 0
stancePos: 0
stanceNeg: 0
stanceEffective:
repliesSupport: 1
repliesOppose: 0
repliesTotal: 2
comments: 1
Powered by Debatepoint.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.