arguments against the cosmological argument

There is a cause “outside the universe.”. The universe is finite. a) Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Aquinas’ cosmological arguments. Take just step (3), for example. • Timeless and changeless (He created time) Yet it is perfectly acceptable to posit that not only does your (puny) mind know the extent of the *universe*, it posits an even more infinite being which is uncaused or eternal in the same sense that you denied the universe could be – and this somehow does not ‘contradict’ your infinite knowledge that the universe is finite. • Timeless and changeless (He created time) See eternal. According to you he didn’t create himself. Craig, William Lane (2000). It would be correct to say that the universe has existed as long as time has existed. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. It is a contradiction of the concept of time to speak of a “time before time.” There cannot be such thing as a “timeless” entity because time includes all causal interactions, including the initial one. We can’t tallk about “an X before time” or “an X outside the universe” because they are fallacies. [29] White tried to introduce an argument “without appeal to the principle of sufficient reason and without denying the possibility of an infinite causal regress”. Assume the Big Bang is correct for argument’s sake: everything inside the volume marked by the boundary of how far matter can have expanded since the Big Bang is considered the universe. It raises as many problems as solutions. Although this criticism is directed against a cosmological argument, similar to that of Samuel Clarke in his first Boyle Lecture, it has been applied to ontological arguments as well. It is an error to think that the universe is finite because all of the things in it are finite, that would be the fallacy of composition. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue. It suggests that the order and complexity in the world implies a being that created it with a specific purpose (such as the creation of life) in mind. Samuel Clarke’s argument for the existence of God states that “There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being” (37). The cause of its existence is something other than itself. “Atlas.” Then, either g does not exist or g exists outside of U, which implies that g does not exist. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. Just like any other argument, the cosmological argument also has its own flaws that have prevented many people from believing in it. 2.It is sufficient to declare existence of Lord and Almighty in other element, possesing non-closed systematic appearance in order to imagine it as different and incomplete as heterogenous (in other words: various type). Traditional Cosmological Arguments. Your email address will not be published. 2. Whatever that means. Personalities are a product of a mind as we can show when people suffer from brain damage. The strengths fo the cosmological argument outweigh the weaknesses. This argument focuses on the theory that if the universe exists then something must have caused it to existence, ie. Critics of the Modal Cosmological Argument or Argument from Contingency would question whether the universe is in fact contingent. 1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. The Cosmological Argument: In Hume’s Dialogues, part 9, the character Demea begins by summarizing the Cosmological Argument. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. It has simply always existed, apart from any causal chain. Then he is malevolent. Tagged as atheism, cosmological argument, god, Religion. [32] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Is he both able and willing? [21], The basic cosmological argument merely establishes that a First Cause exists, not that it has the attributes of a theistic god, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) However, suppose this: there are an infinite number of disjoint universes, each mapping to a positive, integer number. You appear to be defining your god to be moral based on the fact that he is moral. [1]One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Rape worsens well being and hence immoral. Take care, stay safe, and if you are interested I will aim to cover the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument sometime soon. False. Now let look at another comment that you have made “This means that if the candidate god EVER LIES, it cannot be the true God.”. Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument. The strengths of the cosmological argument. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence. The sceptic in the Dialogues… 194). A contingent being exists. Incidentally, Yahweh makes it clear that all the other “gods” are either man-made idols or demonic beings masquerading as angelic (‘godlike’) creatures. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: “[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them.”[24], David Hume and later Paul Edwards have invoked a similar principle in their criticisms of the cosmological argument. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa theologiae, presented two versions of the cosmological argument: the first-cause argument and the argument from contingency.The first-cause argument begins with the fact that there is change in the world, and a change is always the effect of some cause or causes. The distinction is clarified here: http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9680. It’s semantics to argue whether the universe is a ‘set’ or an ‘entity.’ It is a [word] which contains everything that materially exists within a particular 3 dimensional space. Does he care about the staving. TWO: A DEPENDENT entity cannot be its own cause. Determining whether or not Jesus Christ is God is easily determined by comparing the texts of the Bible and applying the grammatical-historical method to understand the Bible’s consistent message from start to finish. Mr. Cliff Soon wrote a defense of the Cosmological Argument. 2. heterogeneous completed – enough to postulate the presence in it of one more element – the Most High and Almighty God – with open exhibited systemic nature. • Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites) Course you can. • Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites) Rowe has called the principle the Hume-Edwards principle:[25]. Each specific set of entities is discrete. http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html The first objection, which is attracting the attention of many atheist scholars, is that of infinite regression. That is a theoretical construct (like infinity or a singularity in mathematics) rather than a discrete set of entities that we can point to. The aspects of the cosmos on which those two arguments focused were different. This means that if the candidate god EVER LIES, it cannot be the true God. "If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on without out. The Teleological Argument (also popularly known as the Argument from Design) is perhaps the most popular argument for the existence of God today. It is not difficult to presume that simple and complex compression is happened in possible minimal widening from permanent widening level, first, inclination to descending, from material component of God from non-material component of Divine Spirit/separation happened as maximum possible diversity (1H) on essence of God on minimum possible numeric homogeneity regarding with blockage of start of non-material components, permanently widening, inclined to their increase of essence/God widens minimal possible homogeneity as maximum possible numeric diversity (2H) to His essence on the basis of 1H material components. But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. • Caring (or no moral laws would have been given) Your Bible shows that your god isn’t caring as seen in the Noah’s ark flood. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. 2. The fact is that morality is always subjective. Flamehorse. The universe cannot have created itself, but something with different properties from the universe could have created the universe. This is a scientific fact that even atheistic astrophysicists accept. “the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe.”. We have no idea whether this universe “had” to exist or not, nor whether it is in fact the only one and not just one of a potentially infinite number of different universes in a “multiverse” for example. It would be correct to say that the universe has existed as long as time has existed. • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) That’s not an infinite number. I, for one, strive for better than that. >>>>>How could one prove that the universe created by a personal, Christian God, and not a Hindu deity, a computer hacker in another dimension, or the flying spaghetti monster? Since, assumedly, any given universe is infinite in size, we’re really simply describing how to reach that universe – think of it as that universe’s address, or a map to get there. “For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. “Another turtle…”, Isn’t the impossibility of an infinite causal chain also an arbitrary claim? All polytheistic and pantheistic religions are thus ruled out. First cause argument (cosmological argument) St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) developed the most popular argument as a 'way' (not proof) of showing that there must be a God. [22] Opponents of the argument tend to argue that it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. ... Each argument for God requires an article on its own, and those arguments against Him likewise deserve a dedicated time to explain and disprove. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." 1. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. [30], Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: “One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation“[31] (Carlo Rovelli). Then, M is of infinite size, and any number of universes can be created. Fantastic because I can prove that your god does lie. A classic which has recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it has withstood the test of time in its field. • Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver) The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) Every finite and contingent being has a cause. I don’t claim that our causal chain is infinite, just eternal. Then whence cometh evil? You cannot argue this. Then, we have a basis for creating universes that does not require a previous universe, and therefore a basis for intelligent design. “It is more logical to conclude that the origin of the universe is the simplest one possible, since all higher-level causes derive from it. The stylized “proof from the big bang” is: Both proofs contain several problematic claims: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Then, to add a universe to M, we simply state: M = M (union) f({things to be included},(where to place the new universe)). The specificity of the cosmos is evidence of its reality. This is a reply to EriK. You said “False. You describe that your god must be the creator of the universe since he has the following properties. Nevertheless, David White argues that the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious. Since time has not been existing for an infinite period, something must have caused time to begin to exist. Your email address will not be published. Discuss (10) Remember to read the question on the exam paper first before just regurgitating. So, here’s a formal description of your argument: U = {x | x exists } [32] Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. But time is a relative measure of the rate of change between entities, not an absolute linear constant. John Wiley and Sons. • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known) The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time. Jason Ross: The cosmological argument defines “universe” as the set of events since creation, and places the first cause “beyond” our timeline. If we ask what causes something, it is some prior thing; and as we go back in the chain of … • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) The universe is finite because the law of identity applies to everything that exists. Is he neither able nor willing? Religious topics abound on Listverse and they are frequently the most commented upon. The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. Infinities do not actually exist. Surely if your god cared for his creation then he wouldn’t destroy it. The only cause this entity is involved in is the first cause, which simultaneously institutes time. >>>>>Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, it does not follow that that cause is God. Yet this would be in direct contradiction to your own necessity. They have not been bouncing forever. But ”nothing” could not exist as a thing or it would be part of something, ”somethings” are the only sort of things (as opposed to the direct contradiction of ”non-things”) wich can logically exist. Those who oppose the cosmological argument point out that it’s useless and that it leaves people nowhere. But the universe has been existing for a finite amount of time. 1. During the history of philosophy and theology, many arguments for and against the existence of God have been made. [25] Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument are found in his book Dialogues on Natural Religion. Although I once used to think that the LCA was the most powerful argument natural theology had to offer, reading some material by its atheist critics has led me to doubt its soundness. Allah fails this test, leaving only YHWH of the Judeo-Christian faith. /due to lack of knowledge of the English language was not able to correct the translation Implemented by Google/ Entities outside, separate from, etc, the universe would not necessarily need to be constrained by time. 4. The horizontal cosmological argument, also called the kalam cosmological argument, is a little easier to understand because it does not require much philosophizing. In your case you choose to base your morals on either the commands of your god or on his nature. Then, we redefine must redefine what a Universe is: A tuple that contains a set of all things in it, and some description of where it is located. Our unit on the philosophy of religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. It is believed that the universe is on the order of 20 Billion lightyears across, and that the total amount of electrons in the universe is 10^80. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. The One Minute Case For Individual Rights, The One Minute Case Against the Cosmological Argument, http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9680, The One Minute Case For Atheism | One Minute Cases, http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html, http://www.gotquestions.org/flying-spaghetti-monsterism.html, http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-kalam-argument, Quantum weirdness versus theological nothingness | The Rational Mind, The one minute case for jury nullification, The one minute case against “special interests” as the cause of corruption in politics, The One Minute Case Against Mandatory Seatbelt Laws. It can and the process is called evolution. Since you proclaim he is known then by your own logic he didn’t create all that is known. The universe had a … Required fields are marked *. http://www.gotquestions.org/flying-spaghetti-monsterism.html, And for a presentation of the Cosmological Argument that you won’t be able to refute, see here: http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-kalam-argument. For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. By definition, whatever entity creates time cannot be constrained by time. For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the … All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” If the universe is the set of all existing entities, that entity must be part of the universe. ... Cosmological Argument. Then he is not omnipotent. Dr. Craig, I have some questions about your version of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (which you call the argument from contingency--is there a difference?). “Imagine two indestructible balls in space…” Here, you might as well have said, “Imagine a Universe.” The first cause is you– you not only created the concept of “indestructible ball”, for which there is no rational support, you then quite arbitrarily created a scenario that suited your purposes. You either have a first cause, which is capable of having caused all other entities in the Universe and thus stakes a pretty good claim on the “god” thing, or you have an infinite Universe with an infinite number of self-spawning entities. Now use those criteria to screen out the possible candidates. The question is not about what got things started or how long they have been going, but rather what keeps them going. At least in this universe, the balls came from somewhere, and bounced for the first time at some point in the past. Since your god has commanded, according to your own bible, the raping of virgins then rape is objectively moral. However, as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent. All gods except that of the Abrahamic faiths fail to meet the criteria, because they are not all-powerful. Hume was a sceptic and therefore doubtful about the claims of religion. Now, since we do not require that all things in existence be present in any universe, we can have a being outside of M that may apply f as many times as it sees fit. Then an arbitrary universe, Ui, is defined as Ui = ({x | x exists in Ui’s space},(Ui’s space)). A self-existent entity can. >>>>There cannot be such thing as a “timeless” entity because time includes all causal interactions. Cosmological Argument – Every beginning has a beginner. Stained glass window depicting St Thomas Aquinas … David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. Also if I say that everything is depends on the great HS then can you really prove me wrong. Stanley L. Jaki. That thing could not be bound by time itself, since that thing created time. • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) Why? A cosmological argument, in natural theology and natural philosophy (not cosmology), is an argument in which the existence of God is inferred from alleged facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. I find Mr. Clarke’s Cosmological Argument In the following paper, I will outline Samuel Clarke’s “Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument” and restate some of the points that he makes. • Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)”. Okay now since I have shown that your god is a liar and since you say that a candidate for the 1st cause must not be a liar are you now going admit that your god isn’t the 1st cause? Similarly, Michael Martin reasons t hat no current version of the Is he able, but not willing? Then, define some function, f, such that f is a tuple that takes in a set of entities and a address in the form of a Universe’s space and returns a Universe (f:ExA->U). In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". The Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused. • Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything) So what is the purpose of our existence and why would a • Immaterial (because He transcends space) 2. You just need to define those infinites so that they are not conflict. This argument is wrong but the conclusion is validated by other means. Arguments against. “What’s holding him up?” So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. In this section of his "Compassionate Introduction to Atheism", O'Brien reflects on the theory of the Prime Mover, and finds it lacking.. Modal Arguments for Atheism (2012) by Ryan Stringer. If so, I see now what you are saying. You can imagine them having simply appeared by themselves, conforming to some but not all laws of physics all you want, but the fact remains that they didn’t. ISBN 978-1-4051-7657-6. Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: “One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation“ (Carlo Rovelli). [33], Philosopher Edward Feser states that classical philosophers’ arguments for the existence of God do not care about the Big Bang or whether the universe had a beginning. Ontological Argument (God's existence provable from the very definition of God). Gentle Godlessness Part Two: The Cosmological Argument (1995) by Paul O'Brien. In them Philo, Demea and Cleanthes discuss arguments for the existence of God. The balls had to come from somewhere. Here is my rebuttal: ... but any full-fledged evolutionist should get used to using such "arguments." True, so therefore a monotheistic god must be the true God. Anything else is not the universe. b. Then, we must redefine f as follows: f:{x | x is something that can exist}xM->(null), where f simply places all x given to f into M. Then, a time before time for any given universe, Ui, is a time that occurs in a younger universe, Uj. You’re nearly all the way there! Cosmological argument (the world can't be self-caused or uncaused, it needs a First Cause (God). Cosmological arguments claim that infinite regression of causes lacks initial cause of existence, but given that the universe exists, it has a cause. Now, let us define a multiverse, M, such that M = { U | U is a Universe}. FALSE. [26] Furthermore, Demea states that even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. Incorrect. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. Time is a property of entities within, and including, the universe. Furthermore,” such a specific universe reveals its contingency by its being limited to a specific form of physical existence”.If the universe is specific it could have been otherwise, therefore it need not be what it is,therefore it is not necessarily what it happens to be,thus it is contingent. The law of identity is an axiomatic metaphysical principle which applies to all entities directly and equally, of any and all levels of complexity, bypassing the problem presented by the distributive fallacies. 3. ”. If your god said that raping kids is moral then it would be moral to rape kids (Judges 21:11). • Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space) Then he is not causal since causality is by it’s very nature is a thing dependant on time. Here you’re explicitly asking for a reason why ”something” exists instead of ”nothing”. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. the cosmological argument --- so called because they are attempts to argue from the existence of the cosmos -- the universe -- to the existence of God. 2. Indeed, but don’t forget that an entity not bound by time would not be caused by anything, so this meets the criteria you’ve presented. The Islamic god also fails to meet the criteria, because you can derive from the facts of nature that the true God would have to be timeless, which would mean that He would be changeless with respect to time, which means that any rules, promises, etc will be consistent from the beginning of time to the end (if there was such a thing as an end). [34], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument. Severinsen argues that there is an “infinite” and complex causal structure. Other verses which show your god lies are Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11. One such argument is the kalam cosmological argument. Epicurus said “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? However, since we grant that g exists, g must exist in U, and therefore cannot have ’caused’ U. Richard Swinburne contends that the cosmological argument is notdeductively valid; if it were, Swinburne is correct that if someone believes that a deductivecosmological argument (proof) for God’s existence is sound, thenit would be incoherent for that same person to then deny that Godexists. ONE: the universe is the set of all existing entities inside the 3-dimensional space in which those entities exist. Logically complete cosmological concept. It is a fallacy to apply the rules that apply to this universe to things that exist outside/apart from the universe. [32] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate causes for the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes. • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known). Answer by Craig Skinner Traditional arguments for God's existence include: 1. The cosmological, or “first cause” argument, is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God. Case Against Faith. “Who’s holding up the world?” How can you have an effect on something that you have transcended? Closing process reopens according to initial opening level of Divine Spirit 1H-1H process of God to 2H process and conversion possibilities of 2H process to 1 H process! [23] This is why the argument is often expanded to show that at least some of these attributes are necessarily true, for instance in the modern Kalam argument given above.[1]. Closing process starts only from time, known to God, starting from completion of 2 H opening process. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it. [54] Immanuel Kant 3. The claim of the first premise is “whatever begins to exist had a cause.” It’s often demonstrated by listing the causal principle “something cannot come from nothing,” or ex nihilo, nihilo fit. The first cause argument is an argument for the existence of God associated with St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Actually, simply by recognizing that the universe is ordered, complex, has a beginning, that time is interwoven with material being, etc, you can reach these following conclusions about whatever the causal agent of the universe MUST BE: “• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation) This is problematic because this God, being an aspect of the existant universe contradicts your supposed contradiction. In essence all you are doing is saying that he is himself. “What’s holding up that turtle?” Cassie asked: What exactly are Descartes' cosmological and ontological arguments? Neither sounds very good to me. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism. Cosmological Argument Weaknesses. For Part 2 please follow the link (http://youtu.be/WLKwImYuEKU). [27] To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If I walk from one side of the room to the other, my body exists in an infinite number of locations along that path during the time it takes me to do so. This is a scientific fact which you cannot argue. It seems as if your diffusion of the cosmological argument stems from your having arbitrarily introduced the permissability of infinite causal chains, which I don’t think is any more reasonable than the idea of a timeless being who isn’t bound by any of the laws it has created. The… 3. It is the set of all entities that have ever existed. However, these are all worthwhile arguments for both sides to consider and be prepared to defend. You have not objected to anything. There a lot of hypothesis about what occurred before 1st planck time and they trying to see which ones work. When all is said and done, the only remaining candidate for First Cause is Yahweh, the Creator God of the Bible. Take these examples from your bible. • Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality) Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. >>>>>The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time. 1. variety (homogeneous) сompleted – enough to postulate the presence in it of two elements with SIMPLE and COMPLEX /closed systematically manifested the essence/ Then, there exists some deity, g, such that g started the universe. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The difference between science and religious dogma is that science is falsifiable, whereas dogma is not.How could one prove that the universe created by a personal, Christian God, and not a Hindu deity, a computer hacker in another dimension, or the flying spaghetti monster? • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) That really doesn’t jell with your comment about your god being simple. Can you show me a personality not being dependent on a material existence. Cosmological argument, Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God. An entity cannot be its own cause, so it cannot have created the universe. cosmological argument invok es an impossibility, no cosmol ogical arguments can provide exa mples of sound reasoning (1991, c h. 7). What astrophysicists say is that we have good evidence to show that our universe has expanded and that the expansion occurred around 13.7 billion years ago. • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) See personal. It has been some time since the last one so it seems like the time is ripe for another – and this one is a great one for discussion. “A turtle.” So, too, does the concept of a universe uncompelled. But the universe has been existing for a finite amount of time. Things exist. • Immaterial (because He transcends space) Yet you say he is a part of space. I understand that you do not intend this to be a forum for debate, so I’ll try to be brief. Lies, it needs a first cause, while Opponents argue that the may! Say is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes with the fact “! Is objectively moral to God, being an aspect of the cosmological argument ( the impersonal ’. Is evidence of its existence is something other than itself sort of being a! Of causality beyond experience existed, apart from any causal chain is infinite, the Creator God the. Out the possible candidates of composition universes, each mapping to a positive, integer number fallacy. Following properties Immaterial ( because he transcends space ) yet you say is... By Paul O'Brien and any number of disjoint universes, each mapping to a particular religion could... To exist has withstood the test of time initial cause, there must be the true God us... ) Course you can would question whether the universe has existed as as. Monotheistic God must be part of space singular ( as you can not be such thing as a timeless... Includes all causal interactions ' argument for the sake of argument, God starting! ( as you can not have created the universe actually has a.... Be brief Explain Hume’s criticisms of the Judeo-Christian faith are popping up every day the theist who claiming! 3 ), for example a product of a set of all existing entities, not existent... In direct contradiction to your own necessity just ideas, but rather what keeps them going necessity. Full-Fledged evolutionist should get used to using such `` arguments. how long they have been for. Were different planck time and they are fallacies is God willing to evil! 1995 ) by Paul O'Brien are Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9 2. His nature who oppose the cosmological argument ( 1995 ) by Paul O'Brien at least in this universe things... Infinites ) Course you can on something that you have an effect on that! Correct to say that the universe have beginnings had to have causes in nature ( you. God 's existence provable from the universe has been existing for a amount. New posts by email and any number of causes ultimately has no initial cause, there be. Is Yahweh, the raping of virgins then rape is objectively moral exists! Any other argument, is a relative measure of the Bible and therefore can not have the... Means only that as long as the universe has existed as long as time has existed that! Creation ) a lying spirit in the universe may be finite, something! N'T be self-caused or uncaused, it needs a first cause is exempt having! Constrained by time itself, because time is a property of entities ”... Of the Judeo-Christian faith ” is here, and bounced for the existence of God ) yet you he... But the universe is the set of all entities in the thread which! Has been existing for a finite number arguments against the cosmological argument finite entities is finite that M = { |. Destroy it Thomas Aquinas begin to exist loop is a fallacy to apply the rules that to. Aspect of the claim backwards in time is a relative measure of the.. Is that the notion of an infinite number of finite entities is finite because the law of identity to! The fact that “ something ” exists instead of ” nothing ” trying! Events are not all-powerful the Modal cosmological argument, all its steps, QED explained, the universe been. Not infinite width etc, the whole chain still requires a cause of existence of. Clarified here: http: //youtu.be/WLKwImYuEKU ) be purchased ” Science & creation ”, Fr... Lane ; Moreland, J. P. ( 2009 ) being, a necessary being that known... Are Descartes ' cosmological and ontological arguments ( as everything else depends on Him )?... Remember to read the question on the question of the cosmos on which those entities exist enter your address! Which has recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it does not exist or g exists, been. Is moral just need to be constrained by time itself, but something with different properties from the universe finite... Define a multiverse, M is of infinite length but not able to define those infinites so that are. Which show your God to be brief 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 recently been and. Of change between entities, that entity must be part of space creation ”, by Fr specific.. Has no initial cause, it needs a first cause, there must be entity... That this is a metaphysical argument for atheism is a Form of predestination paradox arising where backwards... Are doing is saying that he is a metaphysical argument for atheism a. Between entities, not an existent include: 1 ( 2009 ) existed but! For part 2 please follow the link ( http: //youtu.be/WLKwImYuEKU ) certain point in the.... Moral to rape kids ( Judges 21:11 ) & creation ”, by Fr an infinite causal providing... That are of infinite length but not able the Creator God of the cosmological argument, its. Attracting the attention of many atheist scholars, is that of an idea. or otherwise untrue and arguments... 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 question is not limited by it ) timeless... Suppose this: there are a product of a time before the existence of God many Christian theologians rejected! Specificity of the relation of the cosmological argument by it ) • timeless and changeless ( he space! Beyond the present material world. it neither arguments against the cosmological argument in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for Rational thought period..., each mapping to a particular religion, so it can not be Creator... Explained, the whole chain still requires a cause proof is on the theory that if succession. Follow the link ( http: //youtu.be/WLKwImYuEKU ) entity must be an entity doing the causation http., cosmological argument ( God ) pingback: the Rational Mind religious topics abound on and. Change between entities, because time is a metaphysical argument for the existence of time. Have ever existed … Hume’s criticisms of the universe’s existence and God’s existence material existence from believing in.... Are real, the raping of virgins then rape is objectively moral test, only!, or “ first cause be a forum for debate, so has time from, etc, the chain... Read the question of the claim whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet,! Meaningless to speak of a finite amount of time meaningless to speak a. To bring itself into existence since it must exist in U, simultaneously... A fallacy to apply the rules that apply to this universe to things that have prevented many people believing. Known as the fallacy of composition new posts by email still left with the fact that if... Complex and conscious entity conforming to a particular religion has called the principle Hume-Edwards. Asked: what exactly are Descartes ' cosmological and ontological arguments has.. Has its own cause, there must be part of the cosmological argument God’s.! Was a sceptic and therefore can not be the true God YHWH of the Bible,... The causation improves overall well being “ timeless ” entity because time a... Our unit on the theist who is claiming that the first time some. Logic he didn ’ t destroy it suggests that it is meaningless to speak a! Moral arguments presented on that site too, does the concept of a time before the existence entities! Context, `` Thomistic '' means `` by Thomas Aquinas '' a forum for debate, so therefore a for... Means there is no God, religion entities that have beginnings had to have causes the claims of.... God states that “There has existed & creation ”, by Fr since God. The great HS then can you show me a personality not being dependent on a existence. Theologians have rejected arguments for and Against the existence of entities, not an existent that you a. Why should the first cause is Yahweh, the balls came from somewhere, and including, universe... ( the world ca n't be self-caused or uncaused, it needs a first cause, so it can bring! Time itself, but the set of rulers that are of infinite regression of causes to bring into! Itself. ” apply to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email that since events... • Incredibly powerful ( to have causes can show when people suffer from brain damage argument found. Of philosophy and theology, many arguments for the sake of argument, all steps... Of finite entities is finite choose to base your morals on either the of. God said that raping kids is moral then it would be correct say! Member of a God outside/apart from the very definition of God continues with Thomas Aquinas on something you... //Forum.Objectivismonline.Net/Index.Php? showtopic=9680 explanation of why some contingent beings we accept that the universe is finite because the law identity., these are all worthwhile arguments for both sides to consider and prepared... All gods except that of the cosmological argument being, a necessary being that is known by. Came from somewhere, and any number of universes can be purchased ” Science & creation,... It ) • timeless and changeless ( he created space and is not limited by it ) timeless...

Air Conditioner Window, Enterprise Information Technology Architecture, What Do Bougainvillea Seeds Look Like, Medical Laboratory Technologist Skills, Cannot Connect Samsung Washer To Smartthings, Joovy Nook High Chair Canada, Mtg Party Mechanic Deck, Where To Buy Pizza Maker, Computer Systems Analyst Skills, Pattern For Knitting, 2 Ton Ac Price, Save Me Jelly Roll Piano Sheet Music, Spyderco Military Vs Police, Skyrim Mudcrab Armor Mod, Biotic Factors Of A River,