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 of syntax, it simultaneously strips away any [[historical]] substance. The argument is altered into an ahistorical misreading. Because of this it becomes a minor, less important philosophical question to ask, and argument to advance. 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 of syntax, it simultaneously strips away any [[historical]] substance. The argument is altered into an ahistorical misreading. Because of this it becomes a minor, less important philosophical question to ask, and argument to advance. 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 are academic scientists and philosophers of prominence like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet guilty of trying to advance such lines of criticism, but this filters | Not only are academic scientists and philosophers of prominence like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet guilty of trying to advance such lines of criticism, but this tacit approval of addressing fictitious ahistorical cosmological arugments then filters down to the popular culture. Many lay people that read their popular works and then take part in public debate and discussion with friends and family end up defending the exact same misinformed argument. Many critics setup against the cosmological argument of [[natural theology]] consider the critique to be devastating but it really lacks any teeth if historical criticism, or even common sense, is brought in to work. | ||
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. | 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. | ||
