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

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/03/09 - 09:02 AM:	#11
Sashianova wrote: I'm an agnostic for the reason that I think it's either all evidence for god or it all isn't, empirically and all functioning human sensory systems being equal. I admire your objectivity surrounding the issue. I have to admit to an atheist bias; I see the existence of the universe as only evidence for the universe.
Or not.

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 139

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 09:11 AM:	#12
"Is it possible to say that 'nothing' in common usage is an abstract idea that does not actually describe reality at any point?" It sounds like it might, Cheshire. I wouldn't claim to understand it completely. This is the video I watched on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 562

Posted 11/03/09 - 09:29 AM:	#13
I liked Kraus's talk (minus his ad lib side comments). It is a fascinating account, and it is amazing that we are able know this much about ourselves and our universe. The empirical conclusion that something must come from nothing, or that nothing is unbalanced are nevertheless observed phenomena, and as such cannot be properly termed as ultimate, etc. A naturalistic explanation, regardless of its depth and accuracy, forgoes any legitimate claim final truth about the conditional state of the laws of nature. This means, as far as I can tell, that the question is still begged: 'Why potential, why possible?'. It is a most absurd notion that any particular thing must be the particular way it is with an appeal beyond that it is its nature, but that is still where we are left. A self-created universe is explained by the observed and publicly verified phenomena addressed by QM and cosmology today. This is amazing in itself, but it is not an end all for the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument exists honestly as a product of our understanding of causality. It is a by-product of the formal way in which we communicate the rationality of existence to ourselves/others. Its major contribution to philosophy is that it gives us reason to accept that our notion of causality is not ultimate. This notion is perhaps 'universe wide' (as in our perceptive universe), but it is not universal.
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.

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 124

Posted 11/03/09 - 10:20 AM:	#14
Hi, Coming from a thiestic perspective I'd make the following coments. First, the fact that the universe exists must mean that its possible to exist. That seems fairly obvious. But does that mean that it was always possible for it to exist? I know you look at it now and say its here, therefore it must have always been possible, but that's a conclusion that cannot be supported logically. In effect it suffers from the same problem that the idea that everything comes from something else does. At some point something did not come from something that existed before it, else the universe is infinitely old, and then you run into all those other cosmological arguments about how we can be here at a point in time after an infinity of time has passed. Again speaking as a thiest I would say that it seems unlikely that the universe was always possible. At some point, if we postulate a begining, and thus a point before there was something, we had in effect nothing. No matter, no energy, no thought, no time and no space. Nothing. And nothing does not have the potential to become something. It does not have the possibility of anything at all. It is simply nothing. The difference for me between that point and that which followed is of course god. The difference for the athiest / scientist is something yet to be found. As for Tony Flew, I would say that his conversion from supreme athiest to thiest is not as complete as some would imagine. For a start he has only come as far as deist, i.e. he believes in a god, but not any god that has chosen to reveal himself to us, though he says he is open to the possibility. And that from the position I believe he called an athiest with doubts. Also his reasons for his conversion are troubling, at least to me. He has about five justifications he uses for his change of heart, and while I accept several of them, the one about intelligent design I have always found weak. On the other hand I have to admire him for his intellectual honesty / openness to new possibilities, even arguments that go against seventy odd years of personal convictions. His conversion was in 2003 / 2004 so I think his knowledge of cosmology is probably pretty current, 2004 was when his last book was written, and despite the claims that some have made or implied (not in this thread) that he is either going senile or hedging his bets as he approaches death I find him intelligent and honest. Cheers.

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 139

Posted 11/03/09 - 11:13 AM:	#15
psychotick wrote: Again speaking as a thiest I would say that it seems unlikely that the universe was always possible. At some point, if we postulate a begining, and thus a point before there was something, we had in effect nothing. No matter, no energy, no thought, no time and no space. Nothing. And nothing does not have the potential to become something. It does not have the possibility of anything at all. It is simply nothing. The difference for me between that point and that which followed is of course god. The difference for the athiest / scientist is something yet to be found. You'll find the video I posted above interesting, as long as you can look past the pot shots taken at religion. Evidently what is thought of as "nothing" or "empty space" is actually a "substance" (of currently immeasurable qualities) which pops in and out of existence spontaneously. Much like electrons which behave as waves and particles simultaneously, it appears "nothing" both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. It's likely I'm butchering that concept since my understanding is limited to layman's terms, but in the video I posted everything is addressed in very easy to understand language. The insertion of god into the discussion is at best wishful thinking as far as science is concerned. If there is a god, it didn't leave a signature. So the difference is merely the lack of definitive evidence to make the assertion that a god or gods were involved. This does not disprove the existence of god, it only declines to accept it as a theory of any relevance based on the lack of empirical data. Then again, while wishful thinking doesn't have a place in the laboratory it doesn't mean you have to abandon optimism.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/03/09 - 02:17 PM:	#16
Sashianova wrote: You'll find the video I posted above interesting, as long as you can look past the pot shots taken at religion. Wow.
Or not.

Sashianova
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 139

Posted 11/03/09 - 02:29 PM:	#17
You lost me there. What do you mean, "wow," Cheshire? I hope I haven't been rude somehow.

jorndoe
Investigator

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

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 723

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 05:09 PM:	#18
psychotick (#14) wrote: First, the fact that the universe exists must mean that its possible to exist. That seems fairly obvious. But does that mean that it was always possible for it to exist? I know you look at it now and say its here, therefore it must have always been possible, but that's a conclusion that cannot be supported logically. In effect it suffers from the same problem that the idea that everything comes from something else does. At some point something did not come from something that existed before it, else the universe is infinitely old, and then you run into all those other cosmological arguments about how we can be here at a point in time after an infinity of time has passed. Again (again), why exactly is this impossible? Can you please prove this is logically impossible, as you seem to suggest? psychotick (#14) wrote: Again speaking as a thiest I would say that it seems unlikely that the universe was always possible. At some point, if we postulate a begining, and thus a point before there was something, we had in effect nothing. No matter, no energy, no thought, no time and no space. Nothing. And nothing does not have the potential to become something. It does not have the possibility of anything at all. It is simply nothing. The difference for me between that point and that which followed is of course god. If by "the universe" you include "time", then what do you mean by the word "always"? You don't see a problem here..? Also, if I'm reading your comments correctly, your "nothing" is actually "something", namely your "god", no? Something doesn't add up here..
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: 16
Total Posts: 715

Posted 11/03/09 - 08:01 PM:	#19
Sashianova wrote: You lost me there. What do you mean, "wow," Cheshire? I hope I haven't been rude somehow. I found the video informative and compelling. I had no idea there was already so much supported evidence. If something can come from nothing, then there isn't an argument for theism. I didn't expect to find that clear of an explanation. I'm really at a loss for words. Well done. Excellent contribution in support of my preferred point of view.
Or not.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 562

Posted 11/03/09 - 08:15 PM:	#20
Cheshire wrote: I found the video informative and compelling. I had no idea there was already so much supported evidence. If something can come from nothing, then there isn't an argument for theism. I didn't expect to find that clear of an explanation. I'm really at a loss for words. Well done. Excellent contribution in support of my preferred point of view. 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.
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.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

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