Review of the 36 Arguments for the Existence of God - # 1
Pastor Jennifer v2
by beginning with an explication of argument number one. (thanks in
whole to Ms R Goldstein)
I'll add the remaining 35 arguments in due course and let's see if out
theist advocate can add his "new evidence" when all the arguments have
been enumerated.
1 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. The universe must have a cause (from 1)
3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3)
5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from
2 and 4)
6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.
7. God caused the universe (from 5 and 6)
8. God exists
FLAW 1
Can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a
prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to
solve problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem abut
God himself. The proponents of The Cosmological Argument must admit a
contradiction to either his first premise - and say that, though God
exists, he doesn't have a cause - or else a contradiction to his third
premise - and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is
saying that his premises have at least.one exception, but is not
explaining why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than
asserting his unique mystery (the fallacy of Using One Mystery to
Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the
universe itself can either exist, or else be self-caused. Since the
buch stopped somewhere, why not with the universe.
Lawrence M. Krauss' new book A Universe from Nothing provides a
beautifully argued explanation if anyone wants to trouble themselves
with the mechanics behind the universe creating itself.
FLAW 2
The notion of "cause" is by No means clear, but our best definition is
a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical
laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor;
smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. T apply this concept
to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it
into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. Tis line of
reasoning, based on the unjustified demands we make on the concept of
cause, was developed by David Hume.
COMMENT:
The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang and The
Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, is an expression of
our cosmic befuddlement at the question, why is there something rather
than nothing? The late philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser had a classic
response to this question: "And if there wer nothing? You'd still be
complaining!"
Brock
On Feb 23, 8:34 am, Pastor Jennifer v2
> Well since this site has fallen into limbo I thought I'd do the eulogy
> by beginning with an explication of argument number one. (thanks in
> whole to Ms R Goldstein)
> I'll add the remaining 35 arguments in due course and let's see if out
> theist advocate can add his "new evidence" when all the arguments have
> been enumerated.
>
> 1 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
only ONE type of this argument, which is not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
> 1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
> 2. The universe must have a cause (from 1)
> 3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
> 4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3)
> 5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from
> 2 and 4)
> 6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.
> 7. God caused the universe (from 5 and 6)
> 8. God exists
"A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows"
In this light, a specific argument (such as presented above) could be
incorrect, yet would not disqualify other versions of it.
> FLAW 1
> Can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a
> prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to
> solve problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem abut
> God himself. The proponents of The Cosmological Argument must admit a
> contradiction to either his first premise - and say that, though God
> exists, he doesn't have a cause - or else a contradiction to his third
> premise - and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is
> saying that his premises have at least.one exception, but is not
> explaining why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than
> asserting his unique mystery (the fallacy of Using One Mystery to
> Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the
> universe itself can either exist, or else be self-caused. Since the
> buch stopped somewhere, why not with the universe.
of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, "Objections So Bad I Couldn't Have
Made Them Up (Worst Objections to Kalam Cosmological Argument)":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s
Regards,
Brock
Pastor Jennifer v2
The man who commits the Fallacy of the Fast Talker at every
opportunity!
He is highly skilled in the sophistry of the Lincoln-Douglas debate
method. But he definitely isn't a physicist. I suggest you read the
work of some legitimate cosmologists.. especially the new book by
Lawrence Krauss "A Universe from Nothing" It's beautifully written
for the non-physicist - even I could understand it...:-)
"Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born."
Pastor Jennifer v2
welcome your initiative in formulating it. And if you wouldn't mind
enumerating the points of your argument logic style I would greatly
appreciate it. . After all, isn't this the point of this forum.... to
offer evidence for the existence of God.
Call it argument #1 REVISION 1 so we can cross reference them perhaps.
I'm looking forward to your better version.
Brock Organ
So you are a fan of William Lane Craig are you?
Brock Organ
He is highly skilled in the sophistry of the Lincoln-Douglas debate
method.
But he definitely isn't a physicist.
Brock Organ
Brock: Please offer me your improved version of argument #1
Pastor Jennifer v2
So you have nothing to add to the thread then.
If you think someone's argument is weak then you need to demonstrate
why, otherwise your comments are contentless.
Telling me to watch to William Lane Craig without even taking the time
to represent his views yourself is a case of the Fallacy of the Lazy
Appeal to Authority.
Brock Organ
If you think someone's argument is weak then you need to demonstrate
why, otherwise your comments are contentless.
* the argument, to the degree it is a paraphrase, doesn't adequately represent (either intentionally or accidentally) the argument as put forward by a proponent, and faces the danger of being simply a straw-man
Brock Organ
Telling me to watch to William Lane Craig without even taking the time
to represent his views yourself is a case of the Fallacy of the Lazy
Appeal to Authority.
Herbie
The argument requires an 'A' theory of time. Most scientists do not
hold to this notion particlarly in light of general relativity which
has (if anything) a 'B' type theory of time.
The argument requires a linear notion of time. One thing that we do
know about spacetime is that it is not linear.
The argument confuses 'coming into being' with an event. Events have
causes, we know of nothing that comes into being ex-nihilo. Hence we
cannot extrapolate from our human experience of cause and effect
relating to events to things coming into existence.
We know from quantum mechanics that it is not possible to extrapolate
our macroscopic notions of cause and effect. If universal expansion
has an origin in a singularity then the conflicts of quantum gravity
must be resolved and it is far from clear that caus eand effect
apply.
Musycks
Brock Organ
Nice touch Brock, argument by hiding behind a widely discredited author's skirts?
Musycks
Brock Organ
On Mar 11, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Musycks wrote:
> Cosmological? I guess the bible can settle how the Cosmos came to be?
I consider the Bible speaks on certain specific matters with authority:
"God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. … Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
> I mean, it has all the answers for everything. Why bother with anything else?
Well, on the specific and particular topic of salvation from sin, there is no other higher truth:
""Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other."
http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-22.htm
Regards,
Brock
semi
Musycks
fashioned way of reading it Brock.
To argue with someone who truly believes it is so is pointless.
'Sin' is a man made concept, a (sometimes shifting) line in the sand
drawn by cultural and behavioural boundaries, not 'god' given and
permanent, so to argue punishment/reward based on whoever's 'sin' has
been transgressed
is also futile.
Do you have anything other to offer to this group except medieval
concepts readily understood now as myth by most primary school
students?
MR
Brock Organ
> To assert everything in the Bible is inerrant is a perculiarly old
> fashioned way of reading it Brock.
Or just timeless. :)
> 'Sin' is a man made concept, a (sometimes shifting) line in the sand
> drawn by cultural and behavioural boundaries,
Not true:
"The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring
every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good
or evil."
http://nasb.scripturetext.com/ecclesiastes/12-1.htm
> Do you have anything other to offer to this group except medieval
> concepts readily understood now as myth by most primary school
> students?
Some truths are timeless:
"God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy
Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through
Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. … Holy
Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and
superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all
matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's
instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all
that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Regards,
Brock
Verisoph
On Thursday, 5 April 2012 13:25:11 UTC+10, Brock wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Musycks <> wrote:
> To assert everything in the Bible is inerrant is a perculiarly old
> fashioned way of reading it Brock.Or just timeless. :)
> 'Sin' is a man made concept, a (sometimes shifting) line in the sand
> drawn by cultural and behavioural boundaries,Not true:
"The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring
every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good
or evil."
Sin is violating normal, man-made rule.
But original sin, the idea of being punished for a crime committed by someone else is unethical and unacceptable!
Jesus would not have agreed with Paul, who invented the 'original sin' concept, like any other Jew, he too did not believe in it.
> Do you have anything other to offer to this group except medieval
> concepts readily understood now as myth by most primary school
> students?
semi
Sin is violating normal, man-made rule.
But original sin, the idea of being punished for a crime committed by someone else is unethical and unacceptable!
Jesus would not have agreed with Paul, who invented the 'original sin' concept, like any other Jew, he too did not believe in it.