[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Leibnizian argument: Debunking Christianity: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
And the the Cosmological argument about the First Cause, it’s exemption from cause is essentially special pleading. You’ll have to explain how or why the First Cause is exempt.[/quote]
The First Cause is exempt by definition. For something to cause and yet not be caused it cannot have any sort of a cause. If it did, it would not be the first cause, it would be the second or third. And uncaused-cause, necessarily must not be cause and yet be able to cause. Which is the case here.
I don’t think the author did a sufficient job of debunking the argument. He argued extensively about the Principal of Sufficient reason, which is a long way of saying that if it exists, it must have been caused by something else. You cannot assume anything like a “contingent yet independent” being with out some sort of a priori proof. Saying they do is simply not sufficient…You need to identify that which is exists and is not caused or effected. He uses an example of ‘matter-energy’ but that doesn’t make sense either, where did this ‘matter energy’ come from. If it just is, then prove that. First, we don’t “know” matter-energy to exist in the first place. Second, if we did “know” we would have to further prove that all it’s properties exists with out cause, for no reason. He also argues the principals like ‘triangles have three angles’ stand alone, but that’s simply not true. While the principal sufficiently explains something about triangles, it does not necessarily mean that it stands alone…Actually it is born of mathematical principles. Angles are something and triangles are something, so right there you have at least two necessities required exist for that statement to be true and if you want to get really high and think about the properties with in the statement, ‘triangles have three angles’ you can see that the principle does not stand alone, but that it is assembled from other things.
Lastly, he seems to ignore the basics of the Cosmological form that is a breaking down of “things” or “beings”. You cannot rip things apart eternally you either run out of ‘material’ or your run in to something that cannot be broken apart. The latter being more likely.
He made some legit criticisms about the Principal of Sufficient reason, but it hardly does away with the Cosmological form. The biggest problem is with the name, “Sufficient” is not necessary. Necessity is what’s needed. It is the basis on which the theoretical science of cosmology is based. It is what atheist cosmologists try and yet fail to debunk, at least so far have.
Atheists have an easy job, they have to prove that something can come from nothing. All they need is one example of it. Problem is, that does not exist. Since we cannot emulate nothingness, it can never be empirically tested.
[/quote]
It does exist and it happens all the time, do a quick search on quantum events.[/quote]
Quantum events happen in space time as a result of the space’s properties that is energy rich and at least has zero point energy which isn’t nothing.[/quote]
Correct, quantun events are bazaar and not understood, but there is no something from nothing. It’s impossible since you cannot empirically emulate nothingness, you’ll never be able to prove scientifically, something from nothing…Something from very little, yes, but not nothing.
[/quote]
Well said.
