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 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''cosmological argument''' is really a family of arguments that fall within [[natural theology]] and seek to demonstrate, through [[a priori]] and [[empirical]] knowledge, a "Sufficient Reason or First Cause" for the [[cosmos]].<ref>J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, ''Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview'', "The Existence of God", pg 465</ref> [[Theism]] throughout the [[history]] of [[philosophy]] has been considered to identify the [[Metaphysics|metaphysically]] necessary characteristics of that First Cause. A theistic natural theology regards the cosmological argument as central, inexorably leading to what is the classic concept of [[God]]. It is a central theme of the cosmological argument that there need not be a beginning, but that the First Cause actually endures existence at every moment. In other words the most prominent defenders of the cosmological argument, outside of the [[Islamic]] inspired ''kalam'' version, do not formulate the argument with concern for a beginning of the [[universe]] (''See: [[Big bang theory]]'').<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you think you understand the cosmological argument? Question 3. "Why assume that the universe had a beginning?" is not a serious objection to the argument] By Edward Feser. Saturday, July 16, 2011 </ref> | The '''cosmological argument''' is really a family of arguments that fall within [[natural theology]] and seek to demonstrate, through [[a priori]] and [[empirical]] knowledge, a "Sufficient Reason or First Cause" for the [[cosmos]].<ref>J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, ''Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview'', "The Existence of God", pg 465</ref> [[Theism]] throughout the [[history]] of [[philosophy]] has been considered to identify the [[Metaphysics|metaphysically]] necessary characteristics of that First Cause. A theistic natural theology regards the cosmological argument as central, inexorably leading to what is the classic concept of [[God]]. It is a central theme of the cosmological argument that there need not be a beginning, but that the First Cause actually endures existence at every moment. In other words the most prominent defenders of the cosmological argument, outside of the [[Islamic]] inspired ''kalam'' version, do not formulate the argument with concern for a beginning of the [[universe]] (''See: [[Big bang theory]]'').<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you think you understand the cosmological argument? Question 3. "Why assume that the universe had a beginning?" is not a serious objection to the argument] By Edward Feser. Saturday, July 16, 2011 </ref> | ||
{{cquote|It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that the world came into being, that the world is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, or that certain beings or events in the world are causally dependent or contingent.<ref name=sca>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ Cosmological argument] by Bruce Reichenbach. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008</ref>|}} | {{cquote|It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that the world came into being, that the world is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, or that certain beings or events in the world are causally dependent or contingent.<ref name=sca>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ Cosmological argument] by Bruce Reichenbach. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008</ref>|}} | ||
==Versions== | ==Versions== | ||
| Line 57: | Line 45: | ||
=====Modern mathematical set-theory objection===== | =====Modern mathematical set-theory objection===== | ||
In set theory, the set of all natural number is said to be an infinite set, it contains an actually infinite number of members in the set. Not all mathematicians would agree on this however, some suggest that natural number sets are potentially infinite but is a minority view. Existence in the mathematical realm does not mean existence in the real world, because philosophical assumptions need to govern this realm but there isn't good reason to suggest that these assumptions are true. Infinite set theory still leads to the same type of self-contradictions as does the math of actually infinite number of members. | In set theory, the set of all natural number is said to be an infinite set, it contains an actually infinite number of members in the set. Not all mathematicians would agree on this however, some suggest that natural number sets are potentially infinite but is a minority view. Existence in the mathematical realm does not mean existence in the real world, because philosophical assumptions need to govern this realm but there isn't good reason to suggest that these assumptions are true. Infinite set theory still leads to the same type of self-contradictions as does the math of actually infinite number of members. | ||
==Popular Criticisms== | |||
===Misrepresenting the argument=== | |||
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 cosmological 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; | |||
{{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/> | |||
The atheist Robin Le Poidevin, in his book Arguing for Atheism (which my critic Jason Rosenhouse thinks is pretty hot stuff) begins his critique of the cosmological argument by attacking a variation of the silly argument given above – though he admits that “no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form”! So what’s the point of attacking it? Why not start instead with what some prominent defender of the cosmological argument has actually said?<br/> | |||
...<br/> | |||
And if he is an academic philosopher like Le Poidevin or Dennett who is professionally obligated to know these things and to eschew cheap debating tricks, then… well, you do the math.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you think you understand the cosmological argument?] By Edward Feser. Saturday, July 16, 2011 </ref>|}} | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
