Tsidkenu Wrote:the cosmological argument does not elucidate WHICH GOD might be the designer of the universe, but that a designer, a intelligent creator, is the best and most rational answer to the question of the cause of our cosmos.
What makes an intelligent creator the most rational "answer to the question of the cause of our cosmos"?
Where is the evidence to show the soundness of the argument?
How does this "answer" apply to the question on hand? As far as I know... the question is "How did the universe come into being"... not "Why was the universe designed", the later of which assumes that the universe was designed in the first place... the former of which assumes only that the universe came into being. Why was the fire made? Was it to cook food, create warmth, burn a witch, raze a library, cauterize a wound, or all of the above and more? Before we have any scaffolding by which to ask "Why?", "How?", and "If it were otherwise?"... we must first establish the ground on which to build. Before we could ask why the fire was made... we first had to identify that it was indeed a fire, where it was, and when it was made (for sake of argument).
Sherlock Holmes Wrote:It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
As such... there is no data to support or deny the existence of anything beyond that which is physical or 'natural'. The argument that the universe was created by a designer is made with absolutely zero data to support the conclusion... hence no skeptic in their 'right' mind would ever support "The Cosmological Argument". I'm not suggesting you personally support the argument... only underlying it's weakness as an argument 'for' "God".
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
