Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions

A very popular misinformed criticism of cosmological arguments was made by Bertrand Russell (1872 to 1970) in his work titled ''Why I Am Not A Christian''[http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html] regarding the first cause argument. 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."'' A very subtle change to the general layout of the way the classical argument was put forth. Because of the lack of recognition of [[historical]] development it becomes a minor, less important philosophical question to ask and 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]] consider the critique to be devastating, but they have not addressed what the argument historically has been, and thus actually self-refute themselves.