PureX
Veteran 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?
-
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
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
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.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you can't define "order" then there is nothing that you can prove.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, that is like the puddle claiming that the pothole it lies in was created for it.
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.
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.
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?
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
No, it isn't. Your logic is akin to stating "because all individual humans have a mother, the human race must have a mother."
"Everything in my house fits in my house, therefore my house fits in my house."
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
No, it's more like if every single component in a mechanism is red, viewed from a distance, the whole should appear red.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Wow, you just aren't getting it are you?
"Because everything in my house is red, my house must be red."
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
1. the first part is not in evidence. in fact, there is evidence of the opposite
2. the second part engages in exactly the fallacy described in the OP.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Obvious nonsense, since the universe (and thus space and time) existed prior to any conscious creature able to perceive time.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why do you think existance requires order?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
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
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."
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.
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.