Weaknesses of the cosmological argument.

Hume.
1. Depends on the existence of a "necessary" being.
  1. Hume rejects this as he believes there is no being that can be inconceivable.
2. He doesn't believe anything caused the universe to begin.
  1. It could be self existing- perhaps it always existed.
3. If there is a 1st cause why does it automatically lead to the God of classic theism.
4. Aquinas is guilty of making an INDUCTIVE LEAP.
  1. (Jumps to the conclusion that only God can fill the first cause.
5. Human beings automatically make the connection between cause and effect.
Bertrand Russell.
1. Agreed with Hume.
2. The world is just "BRUTE FACT".
3. Some things (like the universe) are just there, and require no explanation.
4. It is not possible to reach an "adequate explanation".
Tyler and Reid.
1. "The logic of the premise does not demand the necessary conclusion".
General criticisms.
1. How can God not have a cause?
  1. What caused God?
    1. Isn't this an exception to the argument's "rule"?
2. The argument only works for those who are satisfied that God himself requires no explanation.
3. Can't the Big Bang Theory be an explanation in itself?
4. Why can't there be an infinite series of causes?

Resumen del Recurso

	Creado por Evilpaws75 hace alrededor de 9 años