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 |
|||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
===Misrepresenting the argument=== | ===Misrepresenting the argument=== | ||
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 | 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. 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 wording through deletion effects the general layout of the classical argument. Because of this change, it takes away any [[historical]] substance. It becomes a minor, less important philosophical question to ask and argument to advance at this point. 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."'' Classical theism supports an eternal God, a personal being that is timeless. God did not ever begin to exist as is implied by the misrepresented argument. Therefore the popular approach of attack by critics is rendered actually useless as it does not fundamentally address the actual arguments. | ||
Not only academic scientists and philosophers of prominence like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet are guilty of trying to advance such lines of criticism. There are many lay people who read their popular works and then take part in public debate and discussion defending the exact same misinformed 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. | Not only academic scientists and philosophers of prominence like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet are guilty of trying to advance such lines of criticism. There are many lay people who read their popular works and then take part in public debate and discussion defending the exact same misinformed 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. | ||
