There is a gap between natural theology and revealed theology. Arguing for a prime mover is not the same thing as arguing for any faith tradition.
This is a tough one to tackle in a whole blog entry because I totally agree. Thomas Aquinas and others' "prime mover" argument for God really only gets to the first point of theism. However, if just this initial part of the argument stands, at the very least atheism is false.
P1) All things that begin to exist have a cause for their existence
P2) The universe began to exist
C1) The universe has a cause
That is just the beginning of the argument. That only gets to the point that there is some sort of God that created the universe. That basic argument does not get us to the Christian God. However, if we add these next few premises we can come to that conclusion:
P3) The cause for the material universe cannot be material itself
P4) The cause for the material universe cannot be with the scope of time
C2) The best description of such a Being is found within Christianity
Also, there is a long and complex argument for Christianity from historical facts:
P4) If Christ rose from the dead, He is God incarnate
P5) Christ rose from the dead (and there is historical evidence to support this)
C3) Christ, as revealed in the Bible is God (the God described above)
So there you have it; there is a gap between natural/general and revealed/special revelation, but it is not a huge gap and easy to cross. Show me another religion that can claim anything near as powerful as the arguments for Christianity and I'll at least give it some thought. Though I've done quite a bit of comparative religious studies and I've found other views wanting.
Denominational differences are another question altogether and doesn't belong in this particular discussion, so I'll leave that for another day.
|Photo credit goes to my beautiful wife, Michelle Ronicker|