>>4255So I'm actually reading this article and here are some nuggets.
>If some anonymous doofus in a combox can think up such an objection, then you can be certain that Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, et al. already thought of it too."Behold, a man!" *Holds up plucked chicken*
>Aquinas in fact devotes hundreds of pages across various works to showing that a First Cause of things would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and so on and so forth.All-powerful is an inherent contradiction.
>any possible scientific theorizing must itself take for granted – for example, that there is any empirical world at all, or any world of any sort at all. No, science checks to see if something works. If it works, science keeps doing it until it stops working. An example of this is that principle itself. Because the universe has always appeared to have consistent rules, scientists behave according to the prediction that the universe will continue to abide by those rules. If the universe ever changes its behavior, science will change along with it.
>Of course, many atheists are committed to scientism, and maintain that there are no rational forms of inquiry other than science. But unless they provide an argument for this claimPeople making this claim do not have the burden of proof.
>Of course, an atheist might reject the very possibility of such metaphysical demonstration. He might claim that there cannot be a kind of argument which, like mathematics, leads to necessary truths and yet which, like science, starts from empirical premises. But if so, he has to provide a separate argument for this assertion. Merely to insist that there cannot be such an argument simply begs the question against the cosmological argument.This paragraph is doing exactly what the author of the piece is telling atheists not to do. It's ignoring arguments that do exist and asserting that the claim supported by the arguments is wrong. Here's the argument behind this, simple as I can put it: Empirical evidence is by its very nature
not certain, i.e. statistical and inductive. Deductive arguments like math cannot have any basis in Inductive arguments or evidence by definiton. A portion of the argument may indeed be deductive, but if there is any amount of induction within the argument, it is no longer deductive and no longer carries the certainty of math.
>If expertise counts for anything – and New Atheist “Learn the science!” types are always insisting that it does – then surely we cannot dismiss the obvious implication that those who actually bother to study arguments like the cosmological argument in depth are more likely to regard them as serious arguments, and even as convincing arguments.Gee maybe most people just find the argument wanting (or have yet to actually be presented with it) so they don't consider it worth studying. If you're already religious, it's hardly surprising you'd go looking for arguments that support your position. This is the opposite of good philosophy and good science, btw.
>After all, there are lots of other arguments and ideas supportive of religion that academic philosophers of religion do not devote much attention to – young earth creationism, spiritualism, and the like.Because this is an argument they can take seriously without feeling retarded because it's a lot more complex and probably over their heads. Also, claiming that Ken Ham is not a philosopher of religion is a No True Scotsman fallacy.
>Let me tell you a bunch of people's opinionsFluff. Make an actual argument.
The main problem here is that people making arguments for a god have the burden of proof. It is not the responsibility of doubters to exhaust the literature that makes the argument. It's the responsibility of the proponents to present the arguments that exists.
Also, the cosmological argument is fundamentally a rationalization. It exists to prop up a set of beliefs that already existed for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with rationality.