From guest blogger, Shanni.
The cosmological argument wants to assert that based on our observations we are able to conclude that there is no thing that moves without an initial mover. By applying this to god and nature we are able to conclude that the universe could not have begun or been “put into motion” without having something start the process (i.e. god). This leads one to the problem of having an infinite regress of movers/creators. If nothing can move without something causing the moving, and by analogy, nothing can therefore be created without a creator than who created god? Not only who created god, but who created gods creator and so on and so forth? I would like to claim that the problem of infinite regress is not a serious problem for a theist for the following two reasons. Firstly, regress is not a problem to the theist since the main objective is to come to the conclusion that there is a god. Meaning, if there is an infinite regress of intelligent designers as long as at some point there was a designer who made the most intelligent being that we now define as god than it doesn’t matter that our god wasn’t the initial being. While this may change some theological arguments for how the universe came to be regress doesn’t undermine the actual argument that there is a god and that he exists. This leads to the second reason regress isn’t a problem. There seems to be a notion that if god’s creators went back infinitely than god would never have been created since he would be the final product. I would like to argue against this because god creators and his creations go on an infinite scale ranging both directions both in the past and the future. If the creators do in fact go back infinitely, like time does, than it would still serve true that all of the things that god has put in motion will go on infinitely in the opposite direction. Therefore, god isn’t the end of the line of infinite progression. Rather, god and everything created after him are simply ticks on the infinite scale of time and creation.
Showing posts with label cosmological argument. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cosmological argument. Show all posts
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Some Thoughts About the Cosmological Argument
From guest blogger, Shao.
I think the biggest controversy about the cosmological argument is: Do we have to have an explanation for everything that exists? This question can lead to many small questions, such as do we need an independent being to create all the dependent beings? Or, can all the dependent beings just exist as a group without an independent being? First of all, I think there is nothing wrong to assume that all the things that we know (water bottle, cars, planets and stars.etc) came to existence by the cause of some other things (which I think we can scientifically prove how the water bottle, cars, planets and stars came into existence). I think the problem here is not the causal relationship, but our lack of ability to conceive something that is infinite. Sure, we understand that when we say something is infinite, it means such thing (pi for instance) will go on forever. Then the point is, what is forever? Since we already have proven scientifically that the universe had a beginning and it was the big bang. Then the problem is: what's before the big bang? Is big bang the start? And if it is, then it means the universe has a beginning and thus it is not infinite. So although we can easily understand that every physical thing around us is dependent, which it does not create itself, we cannot perceive that such casual relationship goes on infinitely. I therefore disagree with the argument that "if we've explained the existence of every member of a collection we've explained the existence of the collection-there's nothing left over to be explained." In other words, I think the problem with this argument is that it assumes that all dependent beings can exist as a collection without a first cause. Well, first, we only know that dependent things do not exist in a loop, which means that the grandson does not cause the existence of the grandfather. Therefore, it seems that we can never use logic to find an explanation for the series because this series goes on infinitely. Furthermore, even if things do miraculously cause each other's existence in a loop, do they also require a spark to start the loop? And even if such a loop does not need a start,then is this loop itself an independent being? It seems that our logic does not work perfectly once we arrive at the problem of the first cause, which I think we always need to make exceptions to our premises. Whether we think there is an independent being or not, we just can't make a valid argument.
I think the biggest controversy about the cosmological argument is: Do we have to have an explanation for everything that exists? This question can lead to many small questions, such as do we need an independent being to create all the dependent beings? Or, can all the dependent beings just exist as a group without an independent being? First of all, I think there is nothing wrong to assume that all the things that we know (water bottle, cars, planets and stars.etc) came to existence by the cause of some other things (which I think we can scientifically prove how the water bottle, cars, planets and stars came into existence). I think the problem here is not the causal relationship, but our lack of ability to conceive something that is infinite. Sure, we understand that when we say something is infinite, it means such thing (pi for instance) will go on forever. Then the point is, what is forever? Since we already have proven scientifically that the universe had a beginning and it was the big bang. Then the problem is: what's before the big bang? Is big bang the start? And if it is, then it means the universe has a beginning and thus it is not infinite. So although we can easily understand that every physical thing around us is dependent, which it does not create itself, we cannot perceive that such casual relationship goes on infinitely. I therefore disagree with the argument that "if we've explained the existence of every member of a collection we've explained the existence of the collection-there's nothing left over to be explained." In other words, I think the problem with this argument is that it assumes that all dependent beings can exist as a collection without a first cause. Well, first, we only know that dependent things do not exist in a loop, which means that the grandson does not cause the existence of the grandfather. Therefore, it seems that we can never use logic to find an explanation for the series because this series goes on infinitely. Furthermore, even if things do miraculously cause each other's existence in a loop, do they also require a spark to start the loop? And even if such a loop does not need a start,then is this loop itself an independent being? It seems that our logic does not work perfectly once we arrive at the problem of the first cause, which I think we always need to make exceptions to our premises. Whether we think there is an independent being or not, we just can't make a valid argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)