Duns Scotus and God's existence?

What do you think of Duns Scotus's argument for God's existence?





The existence of God can be proven only a posteriori, through its effects. The Causal Argument he gives for the existence of God is particularly interesting and precise. It says that an infinity of things that are essentially ordered is impossible, as the totality of caused things that are essentially caused is itself caused, and so it is caused by some cause which is not a part of the totality, for then it would be the cause of itself; for the whole totality of dependent things is dependent, and not on anything belonging to that totality.|||I really dont think if god did exist the definite proof would be a play on words. I side with the theists here, faith is better evidence than this.|||Dunce Scrotum|||Overall I like his philosophy, but natural theology has its weaknesses.*





E.g., "A circle of causality is impossible." -- To the post-Einstein viewpoint of a person who believes that matter is eternal, it is possible. To that point of view, the Big Bang might have happened an infinite number of times, as matter and energy change places, collapse into a single infinitely dense mass, then explode outward into new causalities again.





I'm Christian, but I understand how people do believe this. I think that if this is true, this continuously expanding and contracting universe, then that's how God set it up.|||While IJR certainly agrees that god may be an a posteriori concept, where Scotus looses credibilty in IJR's opinion is an infinity of things that are essentially ordered is impossible, as the laws of nature tend to dispute this. IJR has done some research into what Scotus has said, but not really that deep. His philosophy is interesting.|||I hate to be the one to tell you this but that is Aristotle from the Physics.





Duns Scotus !!! It is the classic argument for the Unmoved Mover.