The argument as a syllogism, to me seem to follow from its premises and from what one experiences in everyday life is inductively true, however for those who disagree the video presents it in the form of exhaustive dilemmas, tell me what you guys think?
I think the kalam version of the cosmological argument, is the worst version. It only takes into account physical matter as it exists in time and space.
From the point of contingency is a better argument.
Will look into that argument tonight.
The cosmological argument is interesting to think about, but I’m not sure how I feel about it. Plantinga did a pretty thorough job beating the crap out of it in his book “God and Other Minds”. And he’s a practicing Christian to boot.
Philosophy of religion enthusiasts would be interested in that book, btw. He has an interesting argument for the rationality of theism.
Also, for the record the best book on philosophy I’ve read is a Bertrand Russell book. Short, sweet, and readable. I’m aware of a lot of the difficulties that his arguments encounter but it’s a thoroughly enjoyable READ…as opposed to a “process” which is what most of the other philo/religion books come down to. So much work to read most of the modern stuff.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Also, for the record the best book on philosophy I’ve read is a Bertrand Russell book. Short, sweet, and readable. I’m aware of a lot of the difficulties that his arguments encounter but it’s a thoroughly enjoyable READ…as opposed to a “process” which is what most of the other philo/religion books come down to. So much work to read most of the modern stuff.[/quote]
‘Third: do not let the beginning of your sentence lead the reader to an expectation which is contradicted by the end. Take, say, such a sentence as the following, which might occur in a work on sociology: “Human beings are completely exempt from undesirable behaviour-patterns only when certain prerequisites, not satisfied except in a small percentage of actual cases, have, through some fortuitous concourse of favourable circumstances, whether congenital or environmental, chanced to combine in producing an individual in whom many factors deviate from the norm in a socially advantageous manner”. Let us see if we can translate this sentence into English. I suggest the following: “All men are scoundrels, or at any rate almost all. The men who are not must have had unusual luck, both in their birth and in their upbringing.” This is shorter and more intelligible, and says just the same thing. But I am afraid any professor who used the second sentence instead of the first would get the sack.’
^ Copied from one of Russell’s essays (How I Write).
That is probably why you find his book enjoyable, and it is the same reason I do.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The cosmological argument is interesting to think about, but I’m not sure how I feel about it. Plantinga did a pretty thorough job beating the crap out of it in his book “God and Other Minds”. And he’s a practicing Christian to boot.
Philosophy of religion enthusiasts would be interested in that book, btw. He has an interesting argument for the rationality of theism.[/quote]
Well I am aware of a few kinds of cosmological arguments, if you can tell me which one plantinga was discussing and the arguments weaknesses that would be nice. As for which book to check out first do you recommend the one from plantinga or russle?
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The cosmological argument is interesting to think about, but I’m not sure how I feel about it. Plantinga did a pretty thorough job beating the crap out of it in his book “God and Other Minds”. And he’s a practicing Christian to boot.
Philosophy of religion enthusiasts would be interested in that book, btw. He has an interesting argument for the rationality of theism.[/quote]
Well I am aware of a few kinds of cosmological arguments, if you can tell me which one plantinga was discussing and the arguments weaknesses that would be nice. As for which book to check out first do you recommend the one from plantinga or russle?[/quote]
The cosmological argument originally came from Aristotle. The cosmological argument is more a type of argument than a singular argument. Using it’s pattern of logic, you can use it to drill down into to the Uncaused-Cause or Unmoved-Mover from any starting point whether it be an physical or metaphysical object, actions or descriptor.
Aragorn, I would like to here how Plantinga, beat the shit out of it. It depends on who makes the argument as to the strength given to it. The Kalam version I could refute no problem. Even Aristotle’s original version is refutable. But you got to give the guy a break, having never understood space-time or even ever hearing of a single God, growing up in poly theistic society. With the purity of logic he came to a conclusion of a singular creative force. That’s pretty impressive.
There are two very minor weaknesses in the argument type. I won’t say what they are.
Most atheist arguments revolve around disproving causal relationships. It’s either based on something from nothing theories, or that causes do not necessitate their effects and everything is random. Those are incredibility difficult to prove, but the attempt is on going, as it should be. No good theory should stand untested.
Joab—Russell’s is an atheist and the book in question was more a general book as opposed to strictly phil. of religion. IMHO Russell is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Check out “Political Ideals” “Why I am not a Christian” “Religion and Science” “History of Western Philosophy” and “The Problems of Philosophy”
Pat—Plantinga’s work is exhuastively analytical and also extensively uses symbolic logic. It is a prime example of the “process” of absorbing a philosophy book that I mentioned vs. “reading” and absorbing a book. I’m perfectly sure I could not do justice to Plantinga’s treatment in the chapter on the cosmological argument in the space of a forum post. But I will look back at my bookshelf when I get home and try to give a bit more of the details. He goes over several different versions of the argument IIRC.
That post will probably have to wait til tomorrow or Sunday but I promise I’ll get back to it. I’m leaving in the next 15 minutes or so and will not be back to an internet hotspot til then (no internet at home).
Also, Plantinga is a practicing Christian.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Joab—Russell’s is an atheist and the book in question was more a general book as opposed to strictly phil. of religion. IMHO Russell is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Check out “Political Ideals” “Why I am not a Christian” “Religion and Science” “History of Western Philosophy” and “The Problems of Philosophy”
Pat—Plantinga’s work is exhuastively analytical and also extensively uses symbolic logic. It is a prime example of the “process” of absorbing a philosophy book that I mentioned vs. “reading” and absorbing a book. I’m perfectly sure I could not do justice to Plantinga’s treatment in the chapter on the cosmological argument in the space of a forum post. But I will look back at my bookshelf when I get home and try to give a bit more of the details. He goes over several different versions of the argument IIRC.
That post will probably have to wait til tomorrow or Sunday but I promise I’ll get back to it. I’m leaving in the next 15 minutes or so and will not be back to an internet hotspot til then (no internet at home).
Also, Plantinga is a practicing Christian.[/quote]
I would appreciate it, but don’t bust your ass over it.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Joab—Russell’s is an atheist and the book in question was more a general book as opposed to strictly phil. of religion. IMHO Russell is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Check out “Political Ideals” “Why I am not a Christian” “Religion and Science” “History of Western Philosophy” and “The Problems of Philosophy”
Pat—Plantinga’s work is exhuastively analytical and also extensively uses symbolic logic. It is a prime example of the “process” of absorbing a philosophy book that I mentioned vs. “reading” and absorbing a book. I’m perfectly sure I could not do justice to Plantinga’s treatment in the chapter on the cosmological argument in the space of a forum post. But I will look back at my bookshelf when I get home and try to give a bit more of the details. He goes over several different versions of the argument IIRC.
That post will probably have to wait til tomorrow or Sunday but I promise I’ll get back to it. I’m leaving in the next 15 minutes or so and will not be back to an internet hotspot til then (no internet at home).
Also, Plantinga is a practicing Christian.[/quote]
Well I did a little research. I see that he prefers the ontological argument, and that further that the cosmological argument requires ontology…But could not find a refutation.
I do have to respectfully disagree with him though. The conception of maximal excellence does not beget a being that contains such a property. You cannot project the object of a thought on to another object. The mere conception does not beget existence. That was Kant’s refutation, sounds pretty solid to me.