Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
Line 44: Line 44:
{{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>|}}


Robin Le Poidevin is another philosopher who is guilty of attempting to eschew the classical cosmological argument. Both he and Daniel Dennett have articulated within their writings attempts against the cosmological argument. Edward Feser, another philosopher, is especially taken aback by the popular level works of Le Poidevin and 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;
Robin Le Poidevin is an atheist philosopher who is also guilty of attempting to eschew the classical cosmological argument. Both he and Daniel Dennett have articulated within their writings attempts against the cosmological argument. Edward Feser, another philosopher, is especially taken aback by the popular level works of Le Poidevin and 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/>
The atheist Robin Le Poidevin, in his book Arguing for Atheism (which my critic Jason Rosenhouse thinks is pretty hot stuff) begins his critique of the cosmological argument by attacking a variation of the silly argument given above – though he admits that “no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form”!  So what’s the point of attacking it?  Why not start instead with what some prominent defender of the cosmological argument has actually said?<br/>
The atheist Robin Le Poidevin, in his book ''Arguing for Atheism'' (which my critic Jason Rosenhouse thinks is pretty hot stuff) begins his critique of the cosmological argument by attacking a variation of the silly argument given above – though he admits that “no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form”!  So what’s the point of attacking it?  Why not start instead with what some prominent defender of the cosmological argument has actually said?<br/>
...<br/>
...<br/>
And if he is an academic philosopher like Le Poidevin or Dennett who is professionally obligated to know these things and to eschew cheap debating tricks, then… well, you do the math.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you think you understand the cosmological argument?] By Edward Feser. Saturday, July 16, 2011 </ref>|}}
And if he is an academic philosopher like Le Poidevin or Dennett who is professionally obligated to know these things and to eschew cheap debating tricks, then… well, you do the math.<ref>[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html So you think you understand the cosmological argument?] By Edward Feser. Saturday, July 16, 2011 </ref>|}}
22,649

edits

Navigation menu