ArchangelMadzz said:
WolfpackN64 said:
In the Cosmological Argument, we are all contingent beings. That means humans are both movers (beings that can act and move/influence others) and moved (we ourselves are also influenced and our actions also depend on prior actions). This could be seen as a giant chain of cause and effect, in which we are both determined and determiners. This chain however, can't go on for all eternity. At the start of the chain, you need a being which moves, but isn't moved itself. Otherwise you'd get a causel infinity (which is the traditional Christian argument) or a temporal infinity (which is the traditional Islamic argument). Both are impossible in the past (actually, even scientifically impossible). This being which moves, yet isn't moved is thus not a contingent being, but a necessary being. Aspects of a necessary being are that if it exists, it could not not exist (since it is necessary) and if it doesn't exist, it wouldn't be able to come into existance (since then it would be a contingent being).
That's the Cosmological Argument is a compressed manner.
|
Cosmological Argument:
There needs to be a being with no beginning to start everything, why? Because if not then the chain goes back forever, why can't the universe go back forever? Because I said so. Why does it have to be a sentient being? Because I said so. Why is this being the Abrahamic god? Cause I said so.
|
What was before the big bang is speculation, but even most scientific models go out from the hypothesis that there was simply no time before the big bang. A temporal infinity in the past is thus impossible, and that means a causal one is also impossible. I never said it had to be sentient, interpret being in a wide sense here. If you start from the concept of a necessary being, it has to be unique, ergo, there can only be one. That's not "because I said so". There is many a library written on the topic from all sides.
