Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Feedback on a Cosmological Argument?

Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 1:39:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is this a good Cosmological argument for God's existence?

1 Everything inside the universe is contingent
2 A sequence of causally related contingent beings cannot be infinite
3 A sequence of causally related contingent beings must be finite.
4 Therefore, there must be a non-contingent (non-dependant) being at the beginning of the sequence of contingent beings

Are the premises sound and easily defendable? Feedback please so I can make this stronger.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 2:42:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:39:43 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Is this a good Cosmological argument for God's existence?

1 Everything inside the universe is contingent
2 A sequence of causally related contingent beings cannot be infinite
3 A sequence of causally related contingent beings must be finite.
4 Therefore, there must be a non-contingent (non-dependant) being at the beginning of the sequence of contingent beings

Are the premises sound and easily defendable? Feedback please so I can make this stronger.

Why do beings have to caused by other beings?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 3:13:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:39:43 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Is this a good Cosmological argument for God's existence?

1 Everything inside the universe is contingent
2 A sequence of causally related contingent beings cannot be infinite
3 A sequence of causally related contingent beings must be finite.
4 Therefore, there must be a non-contingent (non-dependant) being at the beginning of the sequence of contingent beings

Are the premises sound and easily defendable? Feedback please so I can make this stronger.

Here are 3 quick criticisms:

1) You are inferring a "being" for no reason, most causes we know of in the universe are not beings. Even on Earth, if a leaf is blowing down the street it was most likely caused by the wind and not a person with a leaf blower. You have to justify the sentience you are bare asserting.

2) Even if everything inside the universe was contingent, that doesn't mean the universe is. This would be committing a potential fallacy of composition.

3) We don't know if everything in the universe is contingent, if determinism is true, then that would make everything necessary and not contingent.

There are probably more problems, but that's all I care to discuss.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 6:09:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 6:05:06 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Wow I wanted feedback to make it stronger not attacking it.

Rebutting critiques is how you make an argument stronger.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 6:32:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 6:05:06 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Wow I wanted feedback to make it stronger not attacking it.

Well if you don't know what's wrong with your argument, how do you expect to improve on it?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 5:51:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 1:39:43 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Is this a good Cosmological argument for God's existence?

1 Everything inside the universe is contingent
2 A sequence of causally related contingent beings cannot be infinite
3 A sequence of causally related contingent beings must be finite.
4 Therefore, there must be a non-contingent (non-dependant) being at the beginning of the sequence of contingent beings

Are the premises sound and easily defendable? Feedback please so I can make this stronger.

Aquinas' arguments were adequately refuted by Hume. I assume you understand that plagiarising syllogisms isn't a good way to debate, because they become easily rebuttable.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...