JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:
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.
|
Well, the probability of a necessary being or event goes a long way of course. As for revelation, I meant that both in the biblical sense as in the historical sense (the various events where people experienced revelation). Revelation in the personal sense would be a form of abduction, since you take God as an inference to the best explanation for an experience.
