Check users, creationist, Administrators
22,649
edits
Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
{{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>|}} | ||
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> Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) thought the beginning of the universe could not be understood by way of philosophical arguments but rather by divine revelation.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you understand the cosmological argument?] By Edward Feser. Objection 3</ref> This fact of the Aquinas [[worldview]] is why contemporary defenders of the cosmological argument do not consider their philosophizing requires support for a beginning of the universe and time. Philosophy cannot approach the question about the beginning of the universe according to Aquinas, one of the, if not the most famous defender of the cosmological argument. | |||
==Versions== | ==Versions== | ||
Certain versions of the argument attempt to show the [[universe]] as having a beginning like the kalam cosmological argument. It does not assume that there was a beginning however but demonstrates the premise by appealing to scientific evidence like the [[big bang theory]]. | Certain versions of the argument attempt to show the [[universe]] as having a beginning like the kalam cosmological argument. It does not assume that there was a beginning however but demonstrates the premise by appealing to scientific evidence like the [[big bang theory]]. | ||
