Do you think the Cosmological Argument is a valid defense for a creator?

Asked by: TrustmeImlying
  • Even though it does not take much to be a valid defense.

    No matter how flimsy or flawed the evidence used to back it up is, at least it exists. The fact that there is no evidence of a creator means that the creator position can be dismissed leaving the Cosmological Argument as the best theory. This is not saying that it is true but the victor by default.
    Though I may not believe in his theories, I do believe in Hitchen's Razor philosophy.
    Hitchen's Razor:
    A) What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    This means that if something has no evidence of being true, then it should be considered false till evidence can be shown.
    B) The onus is on you to say why, the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not.
    This means that it is the job of the person making the claim to show evidence and not the job of his opponent.

    Hypothetical situation: If I made the claim that the center of the Planet Pluto was made of cotton candy but had no evidence to prove it, would it be considered a valid position or could it be dismissed even though a core sample can not be shown to prove otherwise.
    According to some, the fact that it has been written makes it as valid as the scientific evidence that points to it being made of rock.
    To me, even though the center could be hollow, made of metal, or some other more logical material, because the evidence point to it being made of rock makes it the valid position till evidence can be shown otherwise.

  • ONLY if you cheat.

    The Medieval recasting of the Aristotelian cosmological argument, commonly called the Unmoved Mover argument generally defines God as a timeless, omniscient, good unembodied mind that exists outside the universe, and stipulates that this Being created the universe.
    This means that definitions are EVERYTHING if you want to make the argument valid.
    1) Stipulate that you are only talking of our universe, not the creation of the entire multiverse.
    2) Stipulate that you we are in a multiverse.
    3) Then say that our universe was created by some action of or from within some other universe.
    Technically this begs the question, but that is the reason for the definition in number 1. The best way to cheat is always to make the rules.

    Another way to do apply the cosmological argument is trickier
    1) Stipulate that an impersonal mathematical principle or foundation of the laws of physics can fit the definition of a creator.
    A. This relieves you of having to deal with intent.
    B. It also means that you have direct physical evidence, i.E., the laws of physics.
    C. This also implies omnipotence because it orders all the power that exists
    2) Stipulate that existence is a sufficient good, and that “moral goodness” in the standard human sense is unnecessary.
    A. This relieves you of being undermined or distracted by a rebuttal involving evil.
    3) Stipulate that time can be considered to be analogous to the surface of a sphere, and that any point can function as past, present or future.
    A. This frees you from having to deal with the concept of timelessness/being outside time
    b. Timelessness is a point because nobody seems to really know what the term means in any cohesive, functional, explainable sense.
    This argument to prove the existence of God as the universal creator grows out of mathematics and chaos theory. The deterministic take on chaos theory is that there is no such thing as truly random, and that all events in the universe, however random they seem, are in fact part of a complex chain of patterns. This lays the groundwork for a recasting of the Unmoved Mover as an Unordered Orderer.
    The lack of randomness indicates that the entire universe stems from a single originating pattern. If the origin is multiple patterns, they combine to make a single pattern, anyway.
    The Unordered Orderer could be a primal mathematical principle, which would thereby supersede physical/temporal laws, just as the number seven does.
    The self-reflexive nature of iterated functions, for example, could pass for a sort of self-awareness
    An iterative mathematical principle as an Unordered Orderer implies omniscience because any subsequent reality or event is essentially calculated from the beginning.
    It implies a de facto omnipotence because the patterns and relationships are deterministically established by the function/mathematical principle.
    (This model does, however, play hob with free will.)
    The principle orders the universe from the principle's beginning point outward on the sphere of time.

  • No it doesn't.

    The argument has surfaced now and again, and each time it remains mostly the same with small tweaks in the formula to navigate past the gaping logical fallacies it creates.

    The entire premise of the argument relies upon presupposition and flawed logic. Moving past the initial problems we continue with dubious cases of special pleading and false dichotomies.

    There may yet be evidence of a supernatural being of some kind, but this is no case for that being.

  • There IS No, and Never Has Been, A Valid Defense of a Creator. The Cosmological Argument is No Exception.

    The Cosmological Argument varies, but it can be very basically and succinctly laid out thusly:
    1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
    2. The universe had a beginning.
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    There is actually nothing unreasonable or illogical about this statement. It's been proven beyond doubt by cosmologists that the universe did in fact begin. But that's where all statements of facts end. No scientist knows what the cause was, and that's considering there was one at all. It seems counter-intuitive to say so, but remember that before the big bang, there was no universe. No time, no space, no laws of physics or thermodynamics. If there is no time, then how can there be any such concept of cause and effect? It's a disturbing question, one that, currently, has no answer.

    UNLESS of course you're religious. Then, somehow, in defiance of all reason and logic, we go from considering that there probably was a cause, though we don't know for sure nor do we have any idea of what that cause could have been, to we DO know for certain that there WAS a cause and it definitely was God.

    How one goes from complete ignorance to absolute certainty is the hallmark of the faithful. It, of course, is invalidated by the utter lack of any kind of evidence whatsoever, as well as the blatant assumption that god exists, and that he exists beyond the universe, but was still able to create it for us. What arrogant idiocy.

  • I do not thing the Cosmological Argument is a valid defense foe a creator.

    The Cosmological Argument is commonly brought up in debates and the believers always go on the argument that the Creator created the Universe. But then there is a question just as controversial: Who created the Creator? If there was nothing before the Creator, how was it there? And I have also noticed that philosophical religious arguments cannot technically be proven, for the whole argument is riding on the belief that there is a Creator. Science, on the other hand, has offered various provable creation theories, such as the Big Bang, and also created theories on how those theories exist (The Multiverse Theory).

  • The Cosmological Argument fails because it relies on the PUC

    The cosmological argument relies on an accepted but unprovable idea, that everything has a beginning. This is summed up as the Principle of Universal Causality, so to prove the cosmological argument you must prove the PUC. In order to do this logically you must prove that nothing in the universe happens without cause, which unless you can somehow experience every event from the beginning to end of our universe's existence you can't prove

  • The Cosmological Argument Is Extremely Fallacious:

    Essentially it is an Argument From Ignorance. It is also an argument From False Assertion. There have been many revisions of the argument and it consistently falls over as Fallacious. There is no possible way that the Cosmological argument can be considered any Rational defense for a Creator being, it is an Extremely Irrational Argument at best. It makes Irrational, unsupported by evidence assumptions which cannot even be supported by rational philosophy.
    It Loses Every Time.

  • Hello smlelek jen jop

    Fake boy is very smelly and cute but not so nice. U may think u r correct but you are not u are a liar and u smell like daisy flowers. That is my argument. U cannot make stuff up like that! This is my design. Tee hee hee hoo

  • Of course not!

    I am catholic. Listen to what I have to say. Almost any evidence you try to provide for God, the atheists either won't take it, call it crap, call you stupid, and/or laugh in your face. , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • It's Too Absolute

    One of the greatest failures of Medieval Scholars was their attempts to prove God through logic or reasoning. God (if you believe that he exists) reveals himself to Man, not the other way around.

    That being said, the Cosmological Argument is a poor defence for a "creator" due to the ambiguity of it. Everything that moves must have something that moves it. There is the problem of infinite regress, therefore, somewhere along the line something made the first move and set everything in motion. Now of course in the Medieval Times where denying the existence of God would send you to the stake, scholars would be quick to point out that God is the first initiator due to the "fact" that there must be a mover. The problem, is, again, that this argument is way too vague in order to prove EXACTLY AND DEFINITELY that there it is ONLY A (or THE) CREATOR WHO MADE THE FIRST MOVE.

    Really, it could be anything.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.