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
→Misrepresenting the argument
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
===Misrepresenting the argument=== | ===Misrepresenting the argument=== | ||
A very popular misinformed criticism of cosmological arguments was made by Bertrand Russell (1872 to 1970). Many contemporary [[atheists]] and [[evolutionists]] also misread it in like fashion. Their objection is summarized by the question; ''"who/what created/caused God?"'' In support is usually a reformulation of the argument into; ''"everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists."'' This is a very subtle change to the general layout of classic arguments. 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 cosmological arguments was made by Bertrand Russell (1872 to 1970). Many contemporary [[atheists]] and [[evolutionists]] also misread it in like fashion. Their objection is summarized by the question; ''"who/what created/caused God?"'' In support is usually a reformulation of the argument into; ''"everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists."'' This is a very subtle change to the general layout of classic arguments. 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. | ||
{{cquote|This is a classic straw-man fallacy. No cosmological argument claims that "everything must have a cause." Rather, these arguments (in their varied forms) have claimed that there is something about the universe itself--either its contingency and need for explanation or its finitude in time--that requires a cause beyond itself, a cause that is self-existent and without need of a cause.<ref>Douglass Groothuis, ''Christian Apologetics: A | {{cquote|This is a classic straw-man fallacy. No cosmological argument claims that "everything must have a cause." Rather, these arguments (in their varied forms) have claimed that there is something about the universe itself--either its contingency and need for explanation or its finitude in time--that requires a cause beyond itself, a cause that is self-existent and without need of a cause.<ref>Douglass Groothuis, ''Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith'' (IVP Academic 2011), pg. 209</ref>|}} | ||
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; | ||
