WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:
The problem is that the conclusion of your argument is that the necessary being is god. If we agree that the argument is a deductive argument (which I think you just did but I'm not entirely sure), then the conclusion has to be proven by the premises. At this point, there should be no need for a secondary argument. If you reach the conclusion of your syllogism and you still need a secondary argument, then the argument is not valid.
Again to give an example of what I mean, I'll go to William Lane Craig, who is probably the foremost proponent of the cosmological argument.
His version of the argument goes like this.
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
- The universe began to exist;Therefore:
- The universe has a cause.
I realize this is different than the argument based on necessary being, but the idea is similar (which is why they're both cosmological arguments). At any rate, his argument is valid. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true without a doubt. For argument's sake, we'll say that the premises are true.
After he establishes the conclusion, he then makes a separate inductive argument that the cause he has proved is god. For example "if the cause created time it has to be timeless. If it chose to create the universe it has to be intelligent". And that sort of thing.
Craig, as pretty much every modern theologian, has realized that you can't reach god through the cosmological argument alone. Because the cosmological argument is indeed deductive. So, they establish a cause or necessary being through the cosmological argument, and then create a separate inductive argument.
That's what I mean when I say you're mixing up the argument. Instead of doing what Craig does and establishing a necessary being (which is a word I'd object to but w/e) through a deductive argument, and then making a separate inductive argument that being is god, you are just kind of shoehorning god in at the the end of your deductive argument. And this makes the argument invalid and thus debunked in the form you're presenting it. If you wanted the argument to be valid you'd have to stop at "there is a necessary being". Then you can argue for why that necessary being is god, but that has to be a completely separate argument.
|
Of course I realize that the cosmological argument only shows a necessary being. Sorry if I wasn't clear and I skipped over my second argument, making it seem I mashed the two.
I did a paper on St. Thomas Aquinas who presented the argument and made the jump towards God in one go, having laid out the second argument beforehand.
In any case, it seems as if we kind of agree on what the argument presents.
|
Well, the conclusion of the argument definitely says the being is god. So, it's definitely not valid as you presented it. If we agree on that then ok.
Taking god out of the equation and ending at necessary being, the argument would be valid, but I don't think it's demonstrated to be sound. It's based on the assumption that we can apply what is the case in our experience of the universe (cause and effect)and apply it to a novel situation (the universe prior to the big bang). I would say at best the argument can lead to "something other than contingent things exist". I don't think you can really get any further than that through deduction, and even that is somewhat shaky.
And, of course, I would reject revelation as a meaningful argument out of hand, because using revelation to prove god would be begging the question, assuming your definition of revelation is the Bible.
So when combining all of those factors, I don't think the cosmological argument (even if you combine the deductive and inductive parts) really offers a very compelling argument for the existence of god.
Currently Online 
