Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thread Contributor: wukongdoes this make sense (philosophy)
#1
writing an essay on whether the cosmological argument successfully argues for the existence of god
i wrote this part listening to jaden smith so it might be a bit incoherent, hence why i'm asking u lot

The infinite chains of causation as described by Aquinas is constantly insisted to require a first cause in order to exist. As previously mentioned before, Aquinas argues that without the first cause these infinite chains cannot exist. However, J.L. Mackie, an Australian philosopher, argues that only finite chains of causes need a first cause, therefore meaning Aquinas’ reductio argument is made redundant i.e. absurd conclusion that an infinite chain exists without a first cause before with it the infinite chain supposedly cannot exist. Mackie argues that if we understand infinity correctly, there is no first chain – as the chain of causes keeps going back. For example, if you have hooks that hold other hooks going on forever, there is no first hook as the hooks are hooking onto each other. On the other hand, a defender of the cosmological argument can argue that, by Mackie’s explanation, if an infinite chain of causes going backwards exists, then we ourselves would not exist as we would never reach this point in time. To put this into a practical sense, if someone was to wait for a train to arrive on a track infinitely long, the train would never arrive – as the train ‘keeps going back.’ One problem with this response however is that we cannot prove that we are actually going forwards; for all we know, we could actually be going backwards yet think we’re going forwards, similar to Immanuel Kant’s argument of order concerning the teleological argument. This response is only true if we assume we are going forwards constantly, however what we currently think may also be not what is actually happening currently; in short, we can’t prove that we are going forwards nor backwards, but the definition of infinity (in this context, chain of causes continuing going back) cannot change as this is knowledge we know a priori, therefore keeping Mackie’s argument valid. Because of this, the argument for only finite chains of causes needing a first cause is a valid argument, and results in the cosmological argument not being useful in proving there is a God.

*i am aware of grammatical errors
Reply
#2
(01-01-2018, 04:27 PM)wukong Wrote: writing an essay on whether the cosmological argument successfully argues for the existence of god
i wrote this part listening to jaden smith so it might be a bit incoherent, hence why i'm asking u lot

I read your post and it made me think of this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2pA-hZzr1k
Reply
#3
read read read read read read read read read
Reply
#4
hmm vary interestig... *nodding along as i Read* going to Hvae to "cross-reference'" this with My sexy Sciencetist Gf.thank u
[-] The following 2 users say Thank You to Ottercookies2 for this post:
  • Roundel, Stereofriend
Reply
#5
Makes sense dude
Reply
#6
I apologize for my outburst.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)