creationist
43
edits
Cosmological argument: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
→Popular Criticisms
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
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; | 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>|}} | ||
===Quantum Mechanics=== | |||
Another way [[atheists]] will try to attack the argument is providing an alternate method of the [[Universe]] being created, like [[Quantum Fluctuations]]. They state that the universe can come out of a [[Quantum vacuum]], meaning there's no need for an alternate creator. But how does the Quantum vacuum change, to create the universe, without time? This also requires the amount of [[energy]] in the universe to be zero, due to the [[First Law of Thermodynamics]] not allowing new energy to be created. But how do they know this? They don't, it's an assumption that only poses more questions that must be answered by assumptions. Trying to use Quantum Mechanics to account for our universe is ruled out by [[Occam's razor]], and is an [[ad hoc]] explanation. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
