Cosmological Argument

So who is this God person anyway?

Cosmological Argument

Postby adman » Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:23 pm

The cosmological argument also known as the 'unmoved mover' essentially states that there must have been a 'first cause' or something that happened to bring about the existence of everything else.
Everything that occurs or exists has a cause
Nothing can cause itself
Therefore, unless time is infinite, there must have been a first cause.
This first cause must by definition exist outside of the universe, and IS God.

In my humble opinion this is a load of balls and just an example of peoples inability to understand the universe. As we discover more and more about the universe and our place in it, God gets pushed further and further away until eventually (I hope) the idea of a God as a sentient, all powerful being will vanish forever.

Telological Argument: http://www.argumentclinic.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=42
Ontological Argument: http://www.argumentclinic.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
adman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:21 am

Re: Cosmological Argument

Postby devilsadvocate » Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:36 pm

In my humble opinion this is a load of balls

(I hope) the idea of a God as a sentient, all powerful being will vanish forever.


Well at least you've made your stance known, if not in the most eloquent fashion - a load of balls indeed!

Unless you are actually planning to make a case against the cosmological argument rather than just slagging off other peoples inability to understand the universe I fail to see your point in making this post. Or, to put it another way, you have no case to put against this argument because there is none.
devilsadvocate
Beginner
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:26 pm

Re: Cosmological Argument

Postby Kraizer » Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:40 am

TY, someone who thinks like I do. Very true, you can't have a beginning without something else creating that. Although it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend that it's the solid truth. There's no way that God could have created us or the world, reason being is because he has always been their which really there is no way since everything has a beginning.
Kraizer
Beginner
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:48 am

Re: Cosmological Argument

Postby JackAfter6 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:17 pm

adman wrote:Everything that occurs or exists has a cause
Nothing can cause itself
Therefore, unless time is infinite, there must have been a first cause.
This first cause must by definition exist outside of the universe, and IS God.


This argument is flawed, because it rests on the premise that "nothing can cause itself", yet then goes on to say "there must have been a first cause". It finishes this apparent contradiction with some kind of slippery ambiguity residing somewhere "outside the universe."

I don't think we need to postulate entities existing in the nebulous outer reaches somewhere on the other side of infinity to imagine there is a God. For instance, God could have created himself. God need have no other magical powers than time travel to effect this remarkable achievement.
JackAfter6
Beginner
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:02 pm

Re: Cosmological Argument

Postby adman » Sun Mar 07, 2010 3:00 pm

This argument is flawed, because it rests on the premise that "nothing can cause itself", yet then goes on to say "there must have been a first cause". It finishes this apparent contradiction with some kind of slippery ambiguity residing somewhere "outside the universe."


How is that a contradiction? 'Nothing can cause itself' and 'there must have been a first cause' are two completely separate, unrelated statements. There is no contradiction there at all.

I don't think we need to postulate entities existing in the nebulous outer reaches somewhere on the other side of infinity to imagine there is a God. For instance, God could have created himself. God need have no other magical powers than time travel to effect this remarkable achievement.


So now you're saying its possible for something to create itself? How would that happen exactly? Are you trying to suggest some sort of cosmic time loop whereby the God of the future goes back in time to create himself in the past? And also God now exists within the universe? Therefore he's not infinite, and therefore not actually God.

This is fairly typical of the way in which a belief in God, rather than answering all those unanswerable questions in life, just raises even more impossible questions when you actually try to think about it. The only way to be a happy Christian/Muslim/Jew/whatever is simply to not think and just say 'Its Gods will' over and over..
adman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:21 am

Re: Cosmological Argument

Postby abartlett » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:20 am

Since it seems to me that none of the responses in this forum are in support of the cosmological argument, in the spirit of furthering the debate in this forum I will present to you a defense of this argument.
First allow me to begin by critiquing your initial statement that the cosmological argument is, “just an example of peoples inability to understand the universe” is attacking the person who supports the argument rather than criticizing the argument itself. You see the inability of people to understand the universe does not affect at all the validity of the cosmological argument.
Furthermore, if people (or anyone at all) were to fully understand the universe would it then not follow that we would not need arguments such as the cosmological argument to help us define things about the universe such as the existence of God?
This being considered the cosmological argument stands as follows:
1. There is no case in known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the effective cause of itself
2. In efficient causes it is impossible to go on to infinity because in all efficient causes following in order, the first causes is the cause of the intermediate, and the intermediate causes the ultimate cause
3. To take away the cause would be to take away the effect
4. Therefore if there is no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause.
5. In efficient causes if it is possible to go on to infinity then there is no first efficient cause, and no intermediate cause or ultimate effect and this is impossible.
6. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause. This first efficient cause is given the name of God
[This is taken directly from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways in which he presents the cosmological argument as his second way]
It seems to be the case that you did indeed represent the cosmological argument well. Then you simply chose to reject it without offering any reason for doing so, making it rather difficult for anyone to debate your point.
Therefore, as it stands the Cosmological Argument seems to be both sound and cogent.
abartlett
Beginner
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:13 am


Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron