• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Fatal Flaw of the Cosmological Argument

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Yes.



This statement is not correct. It is illogical to assume the universe MUST have a cause if all of its components have causes, but it is also illogical to assume the universe COULD NOT have a natural cause if all of its components have natural causes.

It is eminently logical, when one sees component parts all have similar function, to see both that function in the whole and design in the whole.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
If you can't recognize order in a chromosome, or in the structure of the universe, nothing I can say will help you. Sorry.

Thats because order does not exist, so almost correct. Unless you can provide evidence that gravity of each moving mass in the universe (from the smallest particle to the biggest black hole to galaxies to superclusters) does not effect the motion of every other mass to form a chaotic space (as per the image i provided) then i will stick to the known facts and evidence, you can stick to your faith.

I could say the same for the chromosome but im sure you see what i mean

And i notice you did not answer the questions but rather tried (and failed) to shift the blame to me.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course you don't, like a banker doesn't see the value in a work of art. But is that the fault of the artwork? Or of the banker?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I like to play with philosophy over a drink with friends. But it is *far* less valuable than art, music, or other forms of expression. It's more of a game than a serious subject.
 

Baroodi

Active Member
God is the First. How He is present? This is above the Imagination and capabilities of the human brain. If mankind are unable to fathom the dimensions of the universe, how they can reach out to a Terra incognito related to God? The cosmological argument is valid but our brain can not advance any more beyond God. Can any one tell us for sure how the sun was made?
 

night912

Well-Known Member
It appears that there's a confusion about "cosmological argument." There's many different ones, but the conclusion doesn't all end with the first cause. I think you're referring to the kalam cosmological argument. Which that argument has been refuted. The simplest reason why it fails is because of the conclusion . Let's supposed it was a valid and sound argument (Which I don't agree that it is), the conclusion is, "therefore there is a first cause." This doesn't work because it doesn't prove that the first cause is a god. The conclusion only proves that there is a first cause, in which that first cause can be a natural one.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
If you can't recognize order in a chromosome, or in the structure of the universe, nothing I can say will help you. Sorry.

This sounds like your answer to the question "how do you distinguish order from chaos", would be something akin to "it's obvious!".

Doesn't sound like a very usefull methodology...
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Oh, don't get me wrong. I like to play with philosophy over a drink with friends. But it is *far* less valuable than art, music, or other forms of expression. It's more of a game than a serious subject.

Reminds me of a funny jab to philosophers by Lawrence Krauss:

"Philosophers love to talk about 'nothing'. Which makes sense, since they are experts of nothing."

:p
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course you don't, like a banker doesn't see the value in a work of art. But is that the fault of the artwork? Or of the banker?

Oh, I see a *value* in philosophy. it is a wonderful way to shoot the breeze with friends. It is a wonderful way to organize thoughts and find assumptions that were missed or taken for granted.

But as a means for finding *truth*, philosophy lacks a great deal. It's a fun game, but not very relevant for finding truth.

So, while the banker might well see the value in art, the banker won't use it to make financial decisions.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It appears that there's a confusion about "cosmological argument." There's many different ones, but the conclusion doesn't all end with the first cause. I think you're referring to the kalam cosmological argument. Which that argument has been refuted. The simplest reason why it fails is because of the conclusion . Let's supposed it was a valid and sound argument (Which I don't agree that it is), the conclusion is, "therefore there is a first cause." This doesn't work because it doesn't prove that the first cause is a god. The conclusion only proves that there is a first cause, in which that first cause can be a natural one.


Actually, all it does is prove there is an uncaused cause or there is an infinite regress of causes. It doesn't show, for example, that there is only *one* such uncaused cause. And it doesn't show there wasn't an infinite regress.

And, of course, like you said, it fails to show that an uncaused cause must have the attributes of a deity.
 
Top