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 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 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, | 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, a critical philosopher of both Le Poidevin and Dennett, is especially taken aback by the popular level works of those two authors. Edward Feser determines this line of attack as "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.<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>|}} | {{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.<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>|}} | ||
