New remarks on the Cosmological Argument [Cross-Listing]
(-1 vote over all institutions)
We present a formal analysis of the Cosmological Argument in its two main forms: that due to Aquinas, and the revised version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument more recently advocated by William Lane Craig. We formulate these two arguments in such a way that each conclusion follows in first-order logic from the corresponding assumptions. Our analysis shows that the conclusion which follows for Aquinas is considerably weaker than what his aims demand. With formalizations that are logically valid in hand, we reinterpret the natural language versions of the premises and conclusions in terms of concepts of causality consistent with (and used in) recent work in cosmology done by physicists. In brief: the Kalam argument commits the fallacy of equivocation in a way that seems beyond repair; two of the premises adopted by Aquinas seem dubious when the terms `cause’ and `causality’ are interpreted in the context of contemporary empirical science. Thus, while there are no problems with whether the conclusions follow logically from their assumptions, the Kalam argument is not viable, and the Aquinas argument does not imply a caused origination of the universe. The assumptions of the latter are at best less than obvious relative to recent work in the sciences. We conclude with mention of a new argument that makes some positive modifications to an alternative variation on Aquinas by Le Poidevin, which nonetheless seems rather weak.
#1 by Schroeder on February 20th, 2012
Quote
There comes a point at which one shouldn’t argue with ideologues. In internet speak, this is called the principle of “Don’t Feed The Trolls”.
#2 by Skielboe A. on February 21st, 2012
Quote
I think its fair to make a logical counter argument, but I too doubt that it will change ideologies much..
#3 by Schroeder on February 21st, 2012
Quote
The authors of this paper do not take issue with the logic of the argument, but rather with the interpretation. To that end, the authors could have written, “The cosmological argument fails for the same reason that the following syllogism fails:
1) Nothing is better than a feast shared with friends.
2) Breadcrumbs are better than nothing
3) Therefore breadcrumbs are better than a feast shared with friends.”
and left it at that.
Paying this much attention to these claims and putting rejoinders on arxiv is just overindulgent. We don’t pour over Newton’s religious writings to see what kind of insights they may or may not offer to modern cosmology, so why waste our time with Aquinas? We don’t consider the claims of astrologers who deign to argue there is some profound truth in the random patterns of naked-eye visible objects, so why pander to a noisemaker like William Lane Craig who has an equivalent amount of intellectual heft and scientific data backing up his convictions?