Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
no 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]] or self-evident 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'' (IVP Academic 2003), pg 465</ref> [[Theism]] throughout the [[history]] of the cosmological argument has been the necessary [[metaphysics]] constituting what is needed by what is inferred from argumentation 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 not a single argument but actually an entire family of [[philosophical]] arguments ''(logos; See: [[Logic]])'' found in [[natural theology]]. There are subtle differences between versions of the cosmological argument and seek to demonstrate, by way of [[a priori]] and [[empirical]] (a posteriori) arguments, a "Sufficient Reason or First Cause" for the [[cosmos]].<ref>J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, ''Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview'' (IVP Academic 2003), pg 465</ref> The family of cosmological arguments hold together through a common [[metaphysics]]. [[Theism]] throughout the [[history]] of the argument has been necessary so that any version require a transcendent First Cause. 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, 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>|}}


22,649

edits

Navigation menu