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
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
===Misrepresenting the argument=== | ===Misrepresenting the argument=== | ||
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 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 advance such lines of criticism, but there are many lay people who read their popular works and then take part in public debate and discussion defending the uninformed idea of the argument as well. 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. | A very popular misinformed criticism of the cosmological argument by many contemporary [[atheists]] and [[evolutionists]], 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 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 advance such lines of criticism, but there are many lay people who read their popular works and then take part in public debate and discussion defending the uninformed idea of the argument as well. 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. | ||
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 Feser has 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; | 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 Feser has 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; | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==Versions== | ==Versions== | ||
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) thought the beginning of the universe could not be understood by way of philosophical arguments but rather by divine revelation.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you understand the cosmological argument?] By Edward Feser. Objection 3</ref> This fact of the Aquinas [[worldview]] is why defenders of the cosmological argument do not consider their philosophizing about it requires a beginning of the universe and time. Philosophy cannot approach the question about the beginning of the universe according to Aquinas, one of the if not the most famous defender of the cosmological argument. | Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) thought the beginning of the universe could not be understood by way of philosophical arguments but rather by divine revelation.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you understand the cosmological argument?] By Edward Feser. Objection 3</ref> This fact of the Aquinas [[worldview]] is why defenders of the cosmological argument do not consider their philosophizing about it requires a beginning of the universe and time. Philosophy cannot approach the question about the beginning of the universe according to Aquinas, one of the, if not the most famous defender of the cosmological argument. | ||
Certain versions of the argument attempt to show the [[universe]] as having a beginning like the kalam cosmological argument. It does not assume that there was a beginning however but demonstrates the premise by appealing to scientific evidence like the [[big bang theory]]. | Certain versions of the argument attempt to show the [[universe]] as having a beginning like the kalam cosmological argument. It does not assume that there was a beginning however but demonstrates the premise by appealing to scientific evidence like the [[big bang theory]]. | ||
