Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions

A very popular but misinformed criticism of the cosmological argument brought forth by many contemporary [[atheists]] is the belief that the argument states ''"everything has a cause."'' This is a very subtle change to the classic argument that is misleading, wholly made out of the air as a line of attack against [[theism]]. Critics use this fictitious stance through a process that reflects the practice of [[eisegesis]] in many ways. The reading into the cosmological argument by critics, especially atheists, allows the construction of an entire false argument that they attempt to dismantle by following the [[logic]] that leads them to ask; ''"who/what created/caused God then?"'' This is not a substantial argument to progress however. Lacking any merit critics who take this route fundamentally address what they envisioned rather than what has been articulated by the cosmological argument throughout the [[history]] of philosophy. The argument states that ''"everything that begins to exist has a cause"'' and with that truthful representation understood, God is a non-contingent, timeless being, thus did not begin to exist rendering the popular approach by critics useless. Even atheists of prominence like Daniel Dennet are guilty of making such attacks, but many notable professional philosophers and lay taking part in public debate and discourse are guilty as well. Many uninformed critics of every stripe that setup against the cosmological argument of [[natural theology]] generally believe that their critique of the argument is devastating but they are not addressing what the argument actually is and end up merely self-refuting. Professional philosophers are taken to task and discredited by defenders of the cosmological argument like Edward Feser in writing or in debate by William Lane Craig. Robin Le Poidevin and Daniel Dennett articulate a grand case against the cosmological argument using a faulty approach. Edward Feser is especially taken aback by what he calls "intellectually dishonest" philosophers.