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 [[philosophical]] arguments ''(logos; See: [[Logic]])'' 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 the necessary [[metaphysics]] constituting what is needed by what is inferred as the First Cause. A theistic natural theology, and so the philosophy of religion in that context, regard the cosmological argument as central, inexorably leading to the [[monotheistic]] view of a personal [[God]]. It is a central theme of the cosmological argument that there need not be a beginning to the universe and to physical space-time, but that the First Cause actually endures existence at every moment. In other words the most prominent historical 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 [[philosophical]] arguments ''(logos; See: [[Logic]])'' 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 the necessary [[metaphysics]] constituting what is needed by what is inferred as the First Cause. A theistic natural theology, and so the philosophy of [[religion]] in that context, regard the cosmological argument as central, inexorably leading to the [[monotheistic]] view of a personal [[God]]. It is a central theme of the cosmological argument that there need not be a beginning to the universe and to physical space-time, but that the First Cause actually endures existence at every moment. In other words the most prominent historical 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>|}} | ||
