RE: The Cosmological Argument and Free Will
September 2, 2014 at 11:15 am
(This post was last modified: September 2, 2014 at 11:40 am by Simon Moon.)
(September 2, 2014 at 7:51 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: One of the most commonly used arguments for establishing the existence of God, as many of you know, states:
1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. The Universe had a cause.
A glaring peculiarity stands out, however, when philosophers such as William Lane Craig peddle this line of reasoning in one breath and yet affirm the existence of indeterminate free will in another.
Are human actions free or determined? Many will reply 'free,' which is to basically proclaim that some events do indeed have a beginning and lack a cause. Well then, on what leg does the Cosmological argument stand? Which is it?
I'm not sure I see a contradiction between the CA and free will.
But the Cosmological argument has several other, more obvious fallacies that invalidate it anyways.
No need to look any further than the fallacy of composition or fallacy of equivocation.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
