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 39: | Line 39: | ||
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 usually couched in the kalam cosmological argument. It is represented 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 useless as it does not actually address any of the arguments premises. | 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 usually couched in the kalam cosmological argument. It is represented 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 useless as it does not actually address any of the arguments premises. | ||
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 | 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. | ||
Professional philosophers are taken to task and discredited by defenders of the cosmological argument. Douglass Groothius confronts the misinformed critique by atheists and evolutionists head-on. It is actually [[logical fallacy]] called a straw-man. | |||
{{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>|}} | {{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>|}} | ||
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; | |||
{{cquote|... none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. | {{cquote|... none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. | ||
...<br/> | ...<br/> | ||
