Check users, creationist, Administrators
22,649
edits
Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
no edit summary
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
A very popular misinformed criticism of the cosmological argument by many contemporary [[atheists]], is generally summarized in a question as; ''"who/what created/caused God?"'' In support of this questions is usually a misrepresentation of the argument that boils it down to; ''"everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists."'' This is a very subtle change to the classic argument, made out of the air as a line of attack against [[theism]]. This is not a substantial philosophical question to ask, nor argument to advance however. Atheists and general critics who take this route fundamentally address what they envisioned rather than what has been defended throughout the [[history]] of the cosmological arguments development within the [[philosophy]] of [[religion]]. | A very popular misinformed criticism of the cosmological argument by many contemporary [[atheists]], is generally summarized in a question as; ''"who/what created/caused God?"'' In support of this questions is usually a misrepresentation of the argument that boils it down to; ''"everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists."'' This is a very subtle change to the classic argument, made out of the air as a line of attack against [[theism]]. This is not a substantial philosophical question to ask, nor argument to advance however. Atheists and general critics who take this route fundamentally address what they envisioned rather than what has been defended throughout the [[history]] of the cosmological arguments development within the [[philosophy]] of [[religion]]. | ||
The classical argument states that; ''"everything that begins to exist has a cause."'' Classic theism | The classical argument states that; ''"everything that begins to exist has a cause."'' Classic theism argues for a being, namely God, that is non-contingent and timeless. God did not ever begin to exist as is implied by the misrepresented argument, it therefore renders the popular approach of attack by critics nonsensical. Not only are academic scientists and philosophers of prominence like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet guilty of trying to use such lines of criticism, there are many lay who read their popular works and then take part in public debate and discussion defending the ill-informed idea of the argument. Many critics setup against the cosmological argument of [[natural theology]] generally consider their critique of the argument to be devastating, but they have not addressed what the argument is, and actually self-refute themselves. | ||
Feser states that the reason why approaches of misrepresentation are futile is because; | 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" and what he coined as "meta-sophistry".<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/meta-sophistry.html Meta-sophistry] Edward Feser blog</ref> Feser states that the reason why approaches of misrepresentation are futile is because; | ||
{{cquote|... none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. | {{cquote|... none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. | ||
...<br/> | ...<br/> | ||
