Correcting the Cosmological Argument: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Correcting the Cosmological Argument » Correcting the Cosmological Argument

Correcting the Cosmological Argument
The negation and correction of the cosmological argument for God.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Correcting the Cosmological Argument

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 722

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 08:59 PM:	#21
rigelrover (#20) wrote: I think that you missed my point above. Or ignored it. I saw this video a few days ago (before posting on your thread). It is not news; it is amazing that we know this much nonetheless, but it does not defeat the cosmological argument. Depends.. Exactly what variety of this argument are you referring to? Some of them argue that a "first cause" is necessary, and subsequently identifies this "cause" with "God". The "something" from "nothing" scenario is effectively an uncaused "something", thus identifying "God" with "nothing". This one and this one, for example, do not quite hold, e.g. check http://www.twinkle.ws/docs/kalam.txt (4K).
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 11/03/09 - 09:01 PM:	#22
rigelrover wrote: I think that you missed my point above. Or ignored it. I saw this video a few days ago (before posting on your thread). It is not news; it is amazing that we know this much nonetheless, but it does not defeat the cosmological argument. It doesn't need to defeat the cosmological argument, because there isn't one. I found it very compelling. I can't make a better argument or explanation, then what was presented. If the video wasn't convincing, then I got nothing. I think jorndoe has my counter arguments more than covered, so for our purposes I'm agreeing with J. Edited by Cheshire on 11/04/09 - 09:44 AM
Or not.

Quiet Observer
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 20

Posted 11/05/09 - 06:57 AM:	#23
Stephen Hawking (a colleague of mine), even after the discovery of dark matter/energy and self-creation gives the following quip about the question at hand: Stephen Hawking wrote: "The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" This namely refers to the fact that the question is continually begged, no matter how nice and complete a model we can construct for the occurrence of regularly distributed stratified phenomena (natural laws); even a law governing something likely coming from nothing. The question is not whether the cosmo-agrument holds, but rather 'what is the precise nature of causality?', and how exactly should we understand the nature of infinities, beginnings and ends in relation to time.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 11/05/09 - 07:08 AM:	#24
Quiet Observer wrote: Stephen Hawking (a colleague of mine) I see, are you trying to demonstrate the fallacy of an argument from authority? QO wrote: This namely refers to the fact that the question is continually begged, no matter how nice and complete a model we can construct for the occurrence of regularly distributed stratified phenomena (natural laws); even a law governing something likely coming from nothing. QO wrote: The question is not whether the cosmo-agrument holds, but rather 'what is the precise nature of causality?', and how exactly should we understand the nature of infinities, beginnings and ends in relation to time. You are right. This is what I suggested earlier in this thread. Kraus even had to dodge the question a bit from the gentleman that asked about infinity at the end of the video (refering to Hilbert's hotel as an example of how hard it is to understand infinity, without talking about how this effects our notion of a 'beginning'). However you decide to adapt it the cosmological argument is about the trouble that we have with understanding causality and the trouble with our strictly temporal based notion of reality. It points to a paradox. We must either resolve the paradox from within, or step out and say something new about causality. The notion of self-creation is the closest that we have gotten, it seems, but it is not the end of the pursuit. Edited by rigelrover on 11/05/09 - 07:27 AM
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 11/05/09 - 08:12 AM:	#25
rigelrover wrote: However you decide to adapt it the cosmological argument is about the trouble that we have with understanding causality and the trouble with our strictly temporal based notion of reality. It points to a paradox. We must either resolve the paradox from within, or step out and say something new about causality. I agree. Our understanding of causality is incorrect as a universal notion. There are causes of events and there are events for which there is no cause beyond possibility. Possibility does not require a cause.
Or not.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 11/05/09 - 08:47 AM:	#26
Possibility requires a rational account of what is possible. This constitutes an antecedent condition (whether it is temporal or not). We run into the same problem here as before.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2135

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/05/09 - 09:03 AM:	#27
atightropewalker wrote: Surely if something is possible it needs something to action it. For example it is possible that I tomorrow will much my housemate for the state he has left the kitchen in (so my fist, his face - not anyone elses fist), but for that possibility to occur I have to exist. I just done see possibility presupposing non-existence. Surely if the world is possible then either something has made the possibility a reality or some mathematical randomness has made it happen (a divine ratio if you may), both of which beg the question of what made those realitys more than possibilities. The problem is that this doesn't work. If you are arguing that "everything must have a cause, therefore God is the cause" then the same argument applies to God - who or what is the cause of God? If your reply to this is that "God needs no cause" then I apply the same argument to the original question - if God needs no cause to exist, why then do you say the universe needs a cause to exist? atightropewalker wrote: I also don't like the idea of trying to use logic to define whether or not a God exists when logic has so many flaws inherent in it at the moment. That's all well and good - but then there is no more room for discussion, is there? If you are saying that logic does not apply then there is no more to be usefully said...
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/05/09 - 09:36 AM:	#28
Everything needs a cause except god. God is omniscient but doesn't control evil. God gets mad about stuff god knew would happen but set in motion anyway. God created free will while fully understanding the consequences and outcomes of free will yet punishes eternally for free will and accepts no responsibility for free will and ultimately is most bent out of shape by people exercising free will to not be Christian. God doesn't need to be logical, so theists don't have to make sense.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2135

Posted 11/05/09 - 09:44 AM:	#29
Sashianova wrote: God is omniscient but doesn't control evil. I think you mean omnipotent . (omniscience entails knowledge but not control; omnipotence implies control).
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

Posted 11/05/09 - 09:48 AM:	#30
Whoops. Vocab fail.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.