WolfpackN64 said:
1. The argument isn't debunked. It receives criticism, but it is quite sturdy.
2. Your presentation of the Cosmological arguments is too simplistic.
A good short explanation would be (and note this is only one abridged form of the cosmological argument, there are many others):
1) Everything is caused and everything that causes is caused itself (these are contingent beings and events, who can cause and are caused).
2) These events of cause and effect happen in a chain (one is caused and causes further).
3) We can follow this chain backwards in time, since in the future, it goes on for eternity.
4) To start the chain, in the beginning, there must be a necessary being. One that causes but is naut caused itself.
5) This necessary being is necessary since if the chain could not begin with a contingent being or event (since it cannot cause itself)
6) This necessary being is God.
I can see people being critical of the jump between 5 and 6, but as you can see the argument is quite a bit more refined then what originally stated. The problem is many lay people have a wrong conception of the cosmological argument and attack it with the wrong arguments. The argument is still well debated up to this day.
|
