Critique of the Cosmological Argument for Proof of the Existence Of God

[tanthrix]

I've decided for my own sake to start critiquing arguments for the existence of God as we go through them in my Philosophy of Religion class at PSU. It will mainly be a nice way for me to get my thoughts out on paper and keep interested in my class, but it will also help explain why I am an atheist to anyone who is curious

Comments

[ruthanolis]

Point 3 raises an interesting question though - who created God?
I've thought about these things on occasion and in the end, every time, I have to just throw it against a wall and say that's enough of that. Because somewhere, somehow, somewhen, something must have come into being from nothing.

Religious belief in God is just that, a belief. You can't physically prove it. You can't disprove it. It's just something that at the very least, guides most people to leading better lives because we need someone in this empty universe to look up to, to want to emulate.

Of course, maybe it's all just mental illness. ;)

[tanthrix]

I wouldn't call it mental illness. More like mental longing. ;-) The psychology of religion isn't as interesting to me though, because it seems be a relatively straight forward set a circumstances that makes religion so prevalent. One of the biggest of which is that humans inherently desire purpose. Everything just being here isn't good enough, so we'll believe anything we're told that gives us purpose and defend it to the end regardless of how illogical it is. Some would argue this is ultimately a good thing as long as it's not taken to a fundamentalist level, regardless of whatever the truth may be. I used to think that, but I'm not so sure these days. I'll post about it in a few weeks or so when I get it all sorted out in my head

[zer]

Ahoy! This is really cool and sounds like good fun.

To start, I think it is possible that Aquinas' assumptions may be a categorical error. He makes a few basic human-level physics observations, but only by a very rough analogy can they apply to the huge cosmological (and tiny quantum-whatever level)-- extending his assumptions (partially) to the modern scientific worldview brings in much more complex systems and ideas that Aquinas simply couldn't know about (and neither do lots of fundies nowadays, at that). I'm not sure how to see it, but people are talking about a forest (or at least a grove) when he was talking about a tree. A Newtonian conception of physics, however immaculate, doesn't quite cut it.

4. Therefore, there must be a first mover and this is God
Then maybe what they call "God" is just "the big bang" or something else mysterious, but this mislabling of phenomena in no way proves that a personal Christian god exists, or that the "first mover" has any qualities besides moving first.

For the restated argument:

1. The

[tanthrix]

Quantum physics is a branch of science that absolutely confounds me. A while back I had some grand desire to figure it all out after reading some bits of "The Elegant Universe" and a few other pop culture physics books, but that desire has since subsided. I still enjoy the watered down versions we get in those types of books and NOVA documentaries, but I feel that since I don't understand any of the underlying math I have no hope of understanding the "big picture," if such a thing is even possible. Huzzah for arm chair physics!

"Look! Quantum stuff is nonsensical! So is my worldview!"I about fell over laughing when I read that. That statement sums up with unparalleled succinctness "What the @!$!@$$ Do We Know Anyway?" (I stopped watching that movie when it got to the part about water crystals forming differently based on the moods of the observers or something) You can't take quantum physics and slap it on the macroscopic world. If you could you'd be receiving the Nobel prize in physics for finally coming up with a grand unified

[natowelch]

I second Zer's reaction point 4. Establishing God as the first mover by definition is fine, and no more unacceptable that establishing the big bang as the first mover by definition. But continuing to say that God is the same thing known as Jehovah in the Old Testament and the Father in the New Testament is unsubstantiated

[tanthrix]

Thomas Aquinas' actual words (translated of course) were as follows:

"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in
motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

Source: Project Gutenberg's Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars), by Thomas AquinasMy Philosophy of Religion professor thinks that Aquinas wouldn't have minded much if you changed God to "energy," or some other such thing. I think his point was that this specific argument is more about why there must be some first eternal thing, not specifically that this thing is God, despite Aquinas' intentions and biases. Regardless, the argument has been interpreted and restated as proof of God for the past 800 years

[zer]

I hope I'm being helpful and not sounding like I'm jumping in just to be witty (though that's certainly a noble pursuit I may admit to have dabbled in from time to time, in my ah, callous youth, ahem aha, continuing now):

Maybe what you're getting at is the notion of causality.

Right on, I say. Causality is where it's at and is at odds with biblical notions of prophecy/fate-- effects don't make causes, causes make effects.