If an argument has an errant fundamental assumption, all the logic following that error crumbles. For example, if I base argument A on the fact that Holy Text X is inerrant, and then later find out that Holy Text X is not divine, then argument A falls apart.
One can follow the trail of assumptions all the way back to an Original Assumption.
Many people make their original assumption god (YHWH, Allah, Krishna, etc). Others originally assume that they exist. Others are unaware of what their original assumption is (but it can be found when enough questions are asked).
In this post, I want to show why choosing a god for a fundamental assumption is an error. In the next post I will propose a better starting place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why it is wrong to make god a fundamental assumption:
Consider the following scenario: A Muslim and a Christian have a debate. The Muslim assumes that Allah is the one true god, that Muhammad is his prophet, and that the Qur'an is god's word. The Christian assumes that YHWH is the one true god, and that the Bible is his word.
Then the Muslim says something like "You are wrong to worship Jesus because Jesus was human, and therefore you are worshipping nature instead of God."
If Islam is assumed, this statement makes complete sense and is a valid attack against Christianity, but if Christianity is assumed, then there is no problem whatsoever.
A reverse scenario also applies.
The Christian says "you are wrong because Islam is works based."
If Christianity is assumed, this is an error. If Islam is assumed, then there is no problem with Islam being work based.
It is unfair to apply the criteria created by one religion to another religion. If a god is assumed, then all the criteria of X religion applies to all the gods that are not assumed, and obviously those other gods make errors (because they are not the god of religion X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Gods should not be original assumptions. If they were, there would be no opportunity for conversation between religions. Everyone would roll the dice, pick a god to believe, and then fundamentaly disagree with each other.
My next post will explore a better alternative: http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions-part-2.html
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Updated, Less Confusing (hopefully) 2nd Look at Why the Cosmological Argument Fails
After further consideration of the argument, I remembered the perspective which caused me to first change from strongly agreeing to disagreeing with this most popular of apologists tools.
The cosmological argument collapses on itself because it makes an assertion which rends the subject material categorically unknowable.
Thesis: If there were a point in time in which the laws of physics were broken, we would not be able to comment on what happened during that point in time with the reasoning we use to comment upon the points in time in which the laws of physics do apply.
Consider the following:
If God created the universe from nothing, then he must have broken the laws of physics. (NOT that this is a bad thing in and of itself!!! I am NOT arguing that God is not allowed to break the laws of physics. If he exists, he created and controls those laws, and that is fine! I am counting on him to do so!)
If the laws of physics were broken at any point in history, we would be entirely incapable of looking at, understanding, or commenting on what was going on. Logic does not apply when the laws of physics are broken.
If the universe began the way apologists who use the cosmological argument think it did, then that beginning happened in such a way that it is untestable and incomparable to anything we know.
Conclusion: If the universe 'began' at some point, then it must have happened in such a way that the laws of physics as we know them were broken, and so no comparison can be made with that 'beginning' and what we know of how the universe works now.
We should not make confident assertions about things we don't (or cannot) understand.
The cosmological argument collapses on itself because it makes an assertion which rends the subject material categorically unknowable.
Thesis: If there were a point in time in which the laws of physics were broken, we would not be able to comment on what happened during that point in time with the reasoning we use to comment upon the points in time in which the laws of physics do apply.
Consider the following:
If God created the universe from nothing, then he must have broken the laws of physics. (NOT that this is a bad thing in and of itself!!! I am NOT arguing that God is not allowed to break the laws of physics. If he exists, he created and controls those laws, and that is fine! I am counting on him to do so!)
If the laws of physics were broken at any point in history, we would be entirely incapable of looking at, understanding, or commenting on what was going on. Logic does not apply when the laws of physics are broken.
If the universe began the way apologists who use the cosmological argument think it did, then that beginning happened in such a way that it is untestable and incomparable to anything we know.
Conclusion: If the universe 'began' at some point, then it must have happened in such a way that the laws of physics as we know them were broken, and so no comparison can be made with that 'beginning' and what we know of how the universe works now.
We should not make confident assertions about things we don't (or cannot) understand.
Why the Cosmological Argument Fails, a Second Look
After further consideration of the argument, I remembered the perspective which caused me to first change from strongly agreeing to disagreeing with this most popular of apologists tools.
The cosmological argument collapses on itself because it makes an assertion which rends the subject material categorically unknowable.
Consider the following:
If God created the universe from nothing, then he must have broken the laws of physics. (conservation of mass for example- going from no mass to all the mass in the universe)
If the laws of physics were broken at any point in history, we would be entirely incapable of looking at, understanding, or commenting on what was going on. Logic does not apply when the laws of physics are broken.
If the universe began the way apologists who use the cosmological argument think it did, then that beginning happened in such a way that it is untestable and incomparable to anything we know.
Conclusion: If the universe 'began' at some point, then it must have happened in such a way that the laws of physics as we know them were broken, and so no comparison can be made with that 'beginning' and what we know of how the universe works now.
We should not make confident assertions about things we don't (or cannot) understand.
The cosmological argument collapses on itself because it makes an assertion which rends the subject material categorically unknowable.
Consider the following:
If God created the universe from nothing, then he must have broken the laws of physics. (conservation of mass for example- going from no mass to all the mass in the universe)
If the laws of physics were broken at any point in history, we would be entirely incapable of looking at, understanding, or commenting on what was going on. Logic does not apply when the laws of physics are broken.
If the universe began the way apologists who use the cosmological argument think it did, then that beginning happened in such a way that it is untestable and incomparable to anything we know.
Conclusion: If the universe 'began' at some point, then it must have happened in such a way that the laws of physics as we know them were broken, and so no comparison can be made with that 'beginning' and what we know of how the universe works now.
We should not make confident assertions about things we don't (or cannot) understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)