A Presentation of the Cosmological Argument(s)

[Wiccan_Child]

The effectiveness of human rationality ends with the supernatural, on the basis that human rationality is based upon the known world which is natural and follows natural laws.

Define 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

Cosmological arguments argue that there is a supernatural cause, based upon arguments rooted in the natural world.

No. Cosmological arguments attempt to use logic and evidence to demonstrate the existence of a cause to the universe. Despite what over-eager apologists, cosmological arguments don't conclude an intelligent or supernatural cause, simply a first cause.

Cosomological arguments not posing a supernatural being as the cause also suffer, because we don't know that our thought processes match what is beyond, and also if the cause were to follow natural laws, then there would be a further cause to cause the cause.

Cosmological arguments seek to rectify this problem, such as by trying to disprove infinite regress. "We don't know that our thought processes match what is beyond" - what does that even mean?

(Rational) Arguments are thus a waste of time and ultimately invalid.

I'm going to assume you meant to say, "All cosmological arguments for the existence of God are ultimately invalid", but this itself is flawed: if you are dismissing all attempts to probe outside the world we know, then you have to criticise essentially all of cosmology and astronomy. After all, human rationality, which you say is grounded in the known world and the natural laws as we understand them, cannot probe beyond what it knows. Indeed, the implication is that nothing knew can be learned - that would go beyond human rationality.


Cosmological arguments are flawed, but not for the reasons you state. If the premises were true and if the logic were valid, then the conclusions must necessarily be true - a first cause, an intelligent designer, a moral lawgiver, etc, would all exist. Their error isn't in daring to think beyond the box, it's in the particulars of how they do it (overextending causality, etc).

 

[Elioenai26]

The effectiveness of human rationality ends with the supernatural, on the basis that human rationality is based upon the known world which is natural and follows natural laws. Cosmological arguments argue that there is a supernatural cause, based upon arguments rooted in the natural world. Cosomological arguments not posing a supernatural being as the cause also suffer, because we don't know that our thought processes match what is beyond, and also if the cause were to follow natural laws, then there would be a further cause to cause the cause.

(Rational) Arguments are thus a waste of time and ultimately invalid.

Then everything you just wrote is invalid. Why? Because you are arguing (an argument) and you are using your rational capacities to do so. Your rational argument is invalid according to your rational argument.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then everything you just wrote is invalid. Why? Because you are arguing (an argument) and you are using your rational capacities to do so. Your rational argument is invalid according to your rational argument.

quatona, myself and various others have made a similar point, yet it continues to elude you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is not material.

Then what is he? Apologists seem fond of simply stating "He is", but what does that even mean?

The universe has a beginning obviously. Cosmology confirms it and so does the impossibility of an actually infinite number of past events. Big Bang cosmology, research it. I do not think scientists are silly at all. I am a scientist, many of my fellow brothers and sisters are as well. If the evidence calls for a beginning of the universe, then we must accept that.

In what line of science do you work?

 

[Aeroflotte]

Then everything you just wrote is invalid. Why? Because you are arguing (an argument) and you are using your rational capacities to do so. Your rational argument is invalid according to your rational argument.

My argument isn't that rationality is completely invalid, but that rationality is limited by our own means to understand. My intent is to undermine the very basis of the arguments for a supernatural cause to the universe. If the assumptions that the arguments are foundation upon are incorrect or inaccurate, then what is the use of posing the arguments?

Two fishing swimming in water are fully functional because that's the environment in which they are meant to be, but throw a fish onto dry land and it flops around and dies. In the same way, rationality is valid within the system of our understanding, but attempt to apply it outside of the system and it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My argument isn't that rationality is completely invalid, but that rationality is limited by our own means to understand. My intent is to undermine the very basis of the arguments for a supernatural cause to the universe. If the assumptions that the arguments are foundation upon are incorrect or inaccurate, then what is the use of posing the arguments?

Two fishing swimming in water are fully functional because that's the environment in which they are meant to be, but throw a fish onto dry land and it flops around and dies. In the same way, rationality is valid within the system of our understanding, but attempt to apply it outside of the system and it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Allegedly. By what rationale do you conclude that rationality becomes invalid when we consider cosmogeny or the supernatural?

 

[Non sequitur]

No one uses that argument so I do not know where you got it from.

Premise one usually reads:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is not controversial. The scientific method is founded upon that principle because it is always verified in our experience and never falsified.

How can we tell the difference, if we are using the logic train, between what began causeless and what did not begin causeless?