WolfpackN64 said:
I did demonstrate them. People asked to elaborate them and I explained further. I see no problem here. People asked me to show them why a Christian God would follow from the argument, which is outside the scope of the cosmological argument, so I bring them back to revelation (every case of which can be justified or not, usually determined by external authority). And of course everyone who actually uses the cosmological argument and rational theology believes in revelation. The argument is often used because people ask further justification for the existance of God. I could go even deeper into the cosmological argument to show why it would end in monotheism, but a singular argument for the existance of a Christian God doesn't exist. That would require a whole coherentist build up of arguments leading into an entire worldview, at which point I'd be writing a book, not posting in a thread on a video game forum. |
You cannot say your argument has true premises, and is still in doubt. If you have premises that you've demonstrated, and the structure of the argument is valid, then the argument is true. If you acknowledge that there are still doubts about your argument, then either one or more premise is not supported, or the structure is invalid. Unless you're claiming the argument is actually proven though, one of those problems has to exist. I'd personally say it's the premises, because your "justification" of the premises has been to repeat some variety of "god is necessary" which is the conclusion of your argument. Using the conclusion to support your premises is question begging.
As for the Christian god being outside the scope of the argument... no. You made that the conclusion of your argument. How can you say the conclusion of your argument is outside the scope of the argument? That's nonsensical. Which is why most proponents of the cosmological argument are wise enough to end it at first cause.
