The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2017, 09:14 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
At work.

Welcome to encountering the subtle differences of english use between cultures.

All the best to your better understanding. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 09:25 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 07:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  He clearly didn't read it. In my original post, I clearly explain why the universe can't be the necessary being and is instead contingent. If he had read my post, he would have argued against my points. Instead I get accused, yet again, of asserting that the universe is contingent.

I did, in fact, read it.

You did, in fact, merely assert that the universe is contingent. You also merely assert several other properties that contingent beings must supposedly have.

You do this because that is all that any argument of this type can ever do. At best, they come down to bare assertion. All ontological arguments necessarily come down to this, because ontology is, ultimately, just semantics dressed up.

But, just to be clear here, and to make it clear that this is neither a personal attack nor an argument made in bad faith or without understanding, I will go over it again, in more detail.

For the sake of argument, let us say that I accept the definition of "contingent" supplied by the argument. All premises which are intended to establish properties of contingent beings or their relationship to necessary beings can, again, for the sake of argument, taken as valid.

(06-02-2017 07:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.

(06-02-2017 07:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  8. The universe is contingent.

These two premises are functionally equivalent (premise one simply puts the cart before the horse and asserts the same thing that premise eight eventually does before the properties of contingent beings are properly established), I will deal with them together.

This is bare assertion.

This is flatly true and not debatable. The argument at no point even contains an attempt to justify this claim. This is the issue that philosophers - not just atheists, philosophers of all faiths and lack-of-sames - take with the argument from contingency. This-

(06-02-2017 07:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The main issue atheists have with this argument is generally premise 5. Many doubt this claim.

- is a complete mischaracterization of the opposing position, and smacks of you having read only those articles which confirm your own beliefs, rather than actively trying to research what the real issues people have with it are.

Now, premise five is also problematic. That is true. It is, in and of itself, also bare assertion. But it is not the crux of the problem.

This is not a new or earth-shattering rebuttal. It is barely a step above trivial. It is the same issue that everyone takes with every ontological argument. You can define "contingency" and "necessary beings" all you like. You can make these definitions as valid and coherent as you wish.

It doesn't matter one bit unless you can show that these definitions actually apply.

You cannot.

This is why no one has taken ontological arguments seriously for centuries. Even Alvin Plantinga, himself a theistic philosopher who formulated one of the more popular modern versions, admits that ontological arguments fail to prove that God exists. They create a handful of definitions that, if they could be shown to apply to anything, would prove this - but since no one can actually establish that they do, they are worthless.

Any claim that any ontological argument applies to this universe is nothing more than bare assertion. As such, the arguments are discarded.

Before moving on to the other arguments, I will take a moment to clarify: the same issues with the above argument exist, in broad strokes, with all of the following ones as well. I just see no point in repeating them, and will cover only the new issues raised.

I will also, for diplomacy's sake, refrain from my customary rant on Aquinas.

(06-02-2017 07:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.

3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

This is simply false.

Aquinas was simply unaware of the concept of conservation of matter, and equivocated between entities ceasing to exist in their current forms and ceasing to exist altogether as a result. It is not, in fact, possible for there to have been a time when there were no things in existence.

Again, the ultimate issue is that, while the argument may be coherent given a universe in which the definitions apply, they simply do not do so in ours.

(06-02-2017 07:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Now it's certainly possible to argue against necessary beings althogether, although this might lead to absurdity. The Kalam makes the mistake of arguing that all things must be caused. This would lead to special pleading. However, it can be ammended by saying all things must be grounded. A contingent being's existence is grounded in something other than itself whereas a necessary being is grounded in itself.

And the Kalam likewise fails to do anything other than assert that the universe is contingent.

(06-02-2017 07:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  In all of these arguments, the possibility of an infinite regress is rejected. If an infinite regress is possible, then the argument fails.

No one is arguing for an infinite regress.

The arguments you present simply fail to establish that the universe is contingent.

(06-02-2017 07:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  There must be a being that is necessary. Many atheists have used this to say that the unvierse "just is". This places the universe as the necessary being. However, as mentioned before, the unvierse doesn't have potency to cause all things.

And, again, you simply assert that the universe is insufficient, without actually establishing it. Saying something does not make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The daisy chain of arguments you attempt to build does not fix the issue. It simply fails to establish that the universe is contingent repeatedly, instead of only once.

No matter how you slice it, all of these arguments boil down to nothing but bare assertion.

They have been debunked.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Unbeliever's post
06-02-2017, 09:46 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 09:52 PM by Astreja.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
The cosmological argument fails most spectacularly when it makes a totally unwarranted jump from "things that come into existence are related to something that was already in existence" to "...therefore, it was caused by *my* particular god, and there are no other possibilities. Therefore, worthless sinner, accept Jesus into your heart or face the consequences."

I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but evangelism does seem to be the primary motivation for utilizing such arguments in the first place.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
07-02-2017, 01:34 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Something Banjo did not read.

This is a very cool aeroplane.

[Image: 2498758cbcc0c4fe0e56f9f9a96dec8d.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Banjo's post
07-02-2017, 04:29 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 01:34 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 09:41 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Something Banjo did not read.

This is a very cool aeroplane.

[Image: 2498758cbcc0c4fe0e56f9f9a96dec8d.jpg]

Grumman F9F Panther? I'm not quite as familiar with the Naval aircraft from the Korea era as I am their USAF equivalents. I probably know the Soviet/PLAAF aircraft better than the USN's. Yes, I am ashamed of myself.

But hell, I own a copy of the MiG-29 original flight manual, translated from the German when we regained East Germany. It's a favorite, though honestly I'm a bigger fan of Sukhoi despite the Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau's excellent export-for-combat record.

Since my goal upon attending USAFA was to become an A-10 pilot, I have tended to focus more on ground attack role planes in general, and their use in that capacity, than I did on Air Superiority combat and aircraft. (This is quite unusual for aspiring USAF pilots, apparently, where the politics are run what some term the "Fighter Mafia" faction, to everyone's detriment-- it's how we got the F-35 boondoggle.) That's how I think I recognize the Panther, armed with ground-attack rockets.

An excellent choice, and kudos from an ironslinger-wannabe (more interested in CAS/BAI missions) on your respect for ground attack role aircraft. It is sufficient, whichever plane you chose from this category.

If I have failed to properly identify the beauty, please correct me. Smile

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 04:41 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 04:46 AM by Banjo.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Yeah man, it was awesome in the G/A role. The film The bridges at Toko Ri, was where I first met both the Panther and Skyraider. Just a little kid then.

I know a lot about Grumman aircraft. I have a plan to do a Hellcat and Bearcat in French colours.

Anyway. Check this out. It's awesome.




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
07-02-2017, 04:51 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
That helicopter! Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
07-02-2017, 05:14 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(07-02-2017 04:51 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  That helicopter! Laugh out load

Ah yes, Mickey.




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 05:19 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked




[Image: 611.gif]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
07-02-2017, 06:08 AM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(06-02-2017 11:46 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:Furthermore, they ignore the point that you cannot reason anything into existence. If something exists in this reality, reason won't make it go away, and if something doesn't exist in this reality, reason cannot change that either.

No one is reasoning things into existence. We are using our reasoning to determine whether something exists.

There's your problem, then. You should probably look at existence in order to determine what does and doesn't exist.

Quote:Yes it does. Fideism is unjustified nonsense.

Fidoism -- is that the belief in Dog?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: