zippy2006
Dragonsworn
I don't really see why the distinction between amateur/expert distinction would be relevant to the question of whether the argument succeeds. There is a huge gaping hole in the logic here, and regardless of whether or not laymen see value in it, non-theists will go for the jugular. The quantum vacuum objection is actually a pretty standard response amongst that population, so I don't consider it overly subtle.
Non-theists and combative atheists are very different populations, and the logic isn't gaping if the unspecified premises are in place. Even if they come from social conditioning, it requires more to claim that the social conditioning is erroneous.
To be honest, I'm not convinced any causal argument works outside of a broadly Aristotelian frame. Without a more robust notion of causality, we're just talking about efficient causes, and there's no reason to really conceptualize those in anything but materialistic terms. Hence the quantum vacuum getting to do all the work.
Did Aristotle himself conclude with a prime mover having intellect and will? It doesn't seem that he did. The same basic problem applies there.
Upvote
0