mrjama

  • **
  • 8 Posts
    • View Profile
Significamt limitations of the Cosmological Argument
« on: March 22, 2014, 03:54:56 pm »
I have watched several of Dr. Craig's discussions regarding the Cosmological argument.  However, I have never been impressed by this in any way.  First, there are many obvious and glaring reasons why the argument is false, but I am sure those have been rehashed here. 

What I am more interested in is what can be deduced if one accepts the argument as TRUE.
These limitations are far more damaging. The cosmological argument does not advance the cause of theism at all, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE.
Specifically:

1) The initial cause need no longer exist.

2) The initial cause must be less complex than its immediate consequent(s), otherwise by the same argument it itself must have a previous cause.

3) The initial consequent(s) could be unintended.

4) The argument neither requires nor implies that the initial cause be "personal", "individual", or in any way self-contained and identifiable.  For example, the cause could simply be "math".

5) The cause need not be unique.

6) The initial cause need not be morally good, rational, or even conscious.

7) There is no "mapping" between the initial cause and any theistic religion whatsoever. For example, why does one believe this initial cause needs to be worshipped?   

The above are just some of the conclusions derived from the argument, and that is IF you accept it as true.  I understand that a few of the above conclusions can be expanded by other arguments(ie, #3 by the Teleological).  But then those must stand independently, and they are mostly easily refuted (for example, the existence of a multiverse immediately and utterly eliminates any basis for design and intent).

In other words, I do not see the cosmological argument as a theistic argument at all.  You could very well claim that the initial cause is an "apparently random quantum fluctuation at the Planck scale at a specific point within a null-energy field" or perhaps "the inevitable result of eternal mathematical laws".

So you've proved math is eternal? Or that the laws of quantum mechanics last forever? Certainly interesting and profound.  But who wants to pray to that?

   

1

Rob Heusdens

  • **
  • 179 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Significamt limitations of the Cosmological Argument
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2014, 08:30:14 pm »
I have watched several of Dr. Craig's discussions regarding the Cosmological argument.  However, I have never been impressed by this in any way.  First, there are many obvious and glaring reasons why the argument is false, but I am sure those have been rehashed here. 

What I am more interested in is what can be deduced if one accepts the argument as TRUE.
These limitations are far more damaging. The cosmological argument does not advance the cause of theism at all, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE.
Specifically:

1) The initial cause need no longer exist.

2) The initial cause must be less complex than its immediate consequent(s), otherwise by the same argument it itself must have a previous cause.

3) The initial consequent(s) could be unintended.

4) The argument neither requires nor implies that the initial cause be "personal", "individual", or in any way self-contained and identifiable.  For example, the cause could simply be "math".

5) The cause need not be unique.

6) The initial cause need not be morally good, rational, or even conscious.

7) There is no "mapping" between the initial cause and any theistic religion whatsoever. For example, why does one believe this initial cause needs to be worshipped?   

The above are just some of the conclusions derived from the argument, and that is IF you accept it as true.  I understand that a few of the above conclusions can be expanded by other arguments(ie, #3 by the Teleological).  But then those must stand independently, and they are mostly easily refuted (for example, the existence of a multiverse immediately and utterly eliminates any basis for design and intent).

In other words, I do not see the cosmological argument as a theistic argument at all.  You could very well claim that the initial cause is an "apparently random quantum fluctuation at the Planck scale at a specific point within a null-energy field" or perhaps "the inevitable result of eternal mathematical laws".

So you've proved math is eternal? Or that the laws of quantum mechanics last forever? Certainly interesting and profound.  But who wants to pray to that?

   

I believe eternal inflating universe is the best explenation for why we are here.

But I am not going to pray for it....

2

Ghostofhitchens

  • **
  • 293 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Significamt limitations of the Cosmological Argument
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2014, 01:36:10 pm »
I too have wondered how the leap from a philosophical god to a book based god happens so easily.  So the universe was created by a god, ok.  How do we know which one, and if it has or needs to reveal itself?

3

Howling Winds

  • **
  • 548 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Significamt limitations of the Cosmological Argument
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2014, 03:52:36 am »
I too have wondered how the leap from a philosophical god to a book based god happens so easily.  So the universe was created by a god, ok.  How do we know which one, and if it has or needs to reveal itself? 

Why would it be logically impossible, or what rule does it violate, that we could know which was the right one?

4

Soyeong

  • **
  • 950 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Significamt limitations of the Cosmological Argument
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2014, 10:38:14 am »
I too have wondered how the leap from a philosophical god to a book based god happens so easily.  So the universe was created by a god, ok.  How do we know which one, and if it has or needs to reveal itself?

The KCA was intended to argue for the existence of only the God of classical theism, so that is a design feature, not a flaw.  This is why WLC's debates on God's existence always include an argument for the resurrection of Jesus, which is an argument for the identity of this cause. 
"Faith is nothing less than the will to keep one's mind fixed precisely on what reason has discovered to it.”

Yeshua answered them, “The reason you go astray is that you are ignorant both of the Tanakh and of the power of God. - Matthews 22:29 (CJB)

5

Ghostofhitchens

  • **
  • 293 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Significamt limitations of the Cosmological Argument
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2014, 03:16:28 am »
One time I saw this lawyer make a good argument for the innocence of OJ Simpson. It worked. 

My point?  To simply make an argument does not mean much.  The argument must be compelling.