Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions

The '''cosmological argument''' is a type of argumentation or family of arguments within [[natural theology]] that intends to demonstrate the existence of a "Sufficient Reason or First Cause of the existence of the cosmos"<ref>''Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview'', "The Existence of God" By J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. pg 465</ref> from apparent self-evident facts. Inasmuch as the [[metaphysical]] concept of [[God]] is un-caused and a non-contingent being who is essentially good the inference leads inexorably to Him as the personal First Cause.<ref name=sca>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ Cosmological argument] by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> The First Cause does not always mean the first of events in a long line of events into the past, but that it is the most fundamental cause that endures things at every moment regardless if there is a beginning or not. Certain versions of the argument however do attempt to show the universe as having a beginning like the kalam cosmological argument. It does not assume that there was a beginning but rather demonstrates that through current scientific evidence like the [[big bang theory]].

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 allows the construction of an entire false argument that critics attempt to dismantle, following [[logic]] that leads them to ask; ''"who/what created/caused God?"'' This is not a substantial philosophical question nor argument to advance however in the context of the cosmological argument. Atheists and general critics who take this route fundamentally address what they envisioned rather than what has been defended throughout the [[history]] of [[philosophy]]. The argument in reality states that; ''"everything that begins to exist has a cause."'' Classic theism posits that God is a non-contingent, timeless being thus did not begin to exist as implied by the question posed therefore renders the popular approach of attack by critics useless. Not only are academic atheist philosophers of prominence like Daniel Dennet guilty of trying to use such lines of criticism, there are many notable philosophers and lay taking part in public debate and discourse that are guilty of it as well. Many uninformed critics setup against the cosmological argument of [[natural theology]] generally consider their critique of the argument as devastating but have not addressed what the argument is and actually self-refute themselves. 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 have articulated within writings attempts against the cosmological argument, ignorant of its history of development. Edward Feser is especially taken aback by these popular level works by Dennett among others and ends up calling them "intellectually dishonest".