Talk:Cosmological argument
(Difference between revisions)
(Everything that exists must have a cause.) |
(→Everything that exists must have a cause.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Who says "Everything that exists must have a cause." instead of "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause."? Wikipedia currently has "Every finite and contingent being has a cause." --[[User:Yqbd|Yqbd]] 04:53, 9 December 2007 (CST) | Who says "Everything that exists must have a cause." instead of "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause."? Wikipedia currently has "Every finite and contingent being has a cause." --[[User:Yqbd|Yqbd]] 04:53, 9 December 2007 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : The "begins to exist" clause is a cop-out to avoid having to answer the question, "who or what created God?". | ||
| + | : To repurpose Paley's watchmaker argument: suppose that you're walking through the woods and see a watch lying on the ground. You might wonder how this complex device came to be there, how it was created, and so forth. If a native came up and told you that the watch had always been there, would you nod in satisfaction and move on? | ||
| + | : Of course not. Because the real question is "what is the explanation for this phenomenon?" It doesn't make sense to have an exception for eternal phenomena. | ||
| + | : --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 12:24, 9 December 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 13:24, 9 December 2007
Everything that exists must have a cause.
Who says "Everything that exists must have a cause." instead of "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause."? Wikipedia currently has "Every finite and contingent being has a cause." --Yqbd 04:53, 9 December 2007 (CST)
- The "begins to exist" clause is a cop-out to avoid having to answer the question, "who or what created God?".
- To repurpose Paley's watchmaker argument: suppose that you're walking through the woods and see a watch lying on the ground. You might wonder how this complex device came to be there, how it was created, and so forth. If a native came up and told you that the watch had always been there, would you nod in satisfaction and move on?
- Of course not. Because the real question is "what is the explanation for this phenomenon?" It doesn't make sense to have an exception for eternal phenomena.
- --Arensb 12:24, 9 December 2007 (CST)
