The Failure of the Cosmological Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2017, 09:39 AM
The Failure of the Cosmological Argument
Over the past while, a poster has repeatedly made the unsubstantiated claim that the Cosmological Argument has not yet been successfully refuted.

Here's a brief outline of the failure of the Cosmological Argument.

First, what is the Cosmological Argument?

In short, it can be outlined thusly:
  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
  2. The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore:
  3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
  4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore:
  5. God exists.

Source: Philosophy of Religion

The irrational leap that deists make is that their God is somehow "outside space and time" (while providing no evidence for this whatsoever), in a vain attempt to circumnavigate the problem of infinite regress (if God exists, then God had a cause of existence, therefore who created God? Then who created that creator? etc etc etc.).

Even if one assumes that the universe actually did have a beginning*, there is no rational, logical way to assume that something outside space and time was the cause of that beginning, because there's no way to determine if anything actually is outside space and time.

God has been created specifically to be immeasurable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, so any reference to God is, by design, an argument without rational foundation.

Another problem with that is, how can an immaterial being outside space and time have influence on matter that is bound by spacetime?

There are many, many other refuations of the cosmological argument, some of which include:
ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked!
Debunking the First Cause argument
Kalam Cosmological Argument--Premise One - granted, this is a blog (not mine, I don't have one) but offers a pretty good outline of the failure of the argument.

* There is a school of thought that the universe prior to a big-bang event some 13.772 billion years ago actually existed infinitely before that. If confirmed, that would drive another nail into the cosmological argument coffin.

Sources: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
and
What if the universe had no beginning?

*edited to fix formatting*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
07-02-2017, 10:01 AM
RE: The Failure of the Cosmological Argument
There's this thread going on:


The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked


It has been debunked, of course. His particular brain fart is Aquinas' argument from contingency.
At it's core is a god of the gaps fallacy, there is also considerable evolutionary evidence that a "being"; which is a vague term , does not require a contingent being as we can trace back our evolutionary history clear back to it's molecular origins.
No "being" is required to initiate it, so maybe we redefine god to meaning indistinguishable from biochemistry? Drinking Beverage

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
07-02-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: The Failure of the Cosmological Argument
(07-02-2017 10:01 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  No "being" is required to initiate it, so maybe we redefine god to meaning indistinguishable from biochemistry? Drinking Beverage

Sounds like a plan. Blush Thumbsup

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:16 PM
RE: The Failure of the Cosmological Argument
(07-02-2017 09:39 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Even if one assumes that the universe actually did have a beginning*, there is no rational, logical way to assume that something outside space and time was the cause of that beginning, because there's no way to determine if anything actually is outside space and time.
This is the problem with a lot of theistic ideation, it rests on the utterly useless concept of the supernatural. "Outside of space and time" sounds transcendent, but it is just then "outside of the natural world" which historically has been labeled "supernatural". That latter label has become sullied with things that some theists are uncomfortable with such as ghosts and various New Age woo, so they prefer the deepity "outside of space and time". But it's all the same thing: something that it is impossible to discuss because it's impossible to perceive or validate or falsify in any way whatsoever.

From this it follows that "the supernatural" is what someone asserts that it is, no more and no less. And therefore, meaningless. I don't dignify it with discussion anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: