Another example of this is God and The Sun at Fatima.
Most people who comment on the cosmological argument demonstrably do not know what they are talking about. This includes all the prominent New Atheist writers. It also includes most scientists. And it even includes many theologians and philosophers, or at least those who have not devoted much study to the issue.
This may sound arrogant, but it is not. The point has nothing to do with me. What I am saying is pretty much common knowledge among professional philosophers of religion including atheist philosophers of religionwho — naturally, given the subject matter of their particular philosophical sub-discipline — are the people who know more about the cosmological argument than anyone else does.
In particular, I think that the vast majority of philosophers who have studied the argument in any depth — and again, that includes atheists as well as theists, though it does not include most philosophers outside the sub-discipline of philosophy of religion — would agree with the points I am about to make, or with most of them anyway.
Of course, I do not mean that they would all agree with me that the argument is at the end of the day a convincing argument. I just mean that they would agree that most non-specialists who comment on it do not understand it, and that the reasons why people reject it are usually superficial and based on caricatures of the argument.
Nor do I say that every single self-described philosopher of religion would agree with the points I am about to make.
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities. But I am saying that the vast majority of philosophers of religion would agree, and again, that this includes the atheists among them as well as the theists.
The reason is that, while the basic structure of the main versions of the argument is fairly simple, the background metaphysics necessary to a proper understanding of the key terms and inferences is not.
The serious objections to the argument can in my view all be answered, but that too can properly be done only after the background ideas have been set out. And that too is a task carried out in the books.
I will deal here with some of the non-serious objections, though. In particular, what follows is intended to clear away some of the intellectual rubbish that prevents many people from giving the argument a fair hearing.
To get to the point sthen: Everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists. They then have no trouble at all poking holes in it. If everything has a cause, then what caused God?The dialogue takes place the day after Socrates described his ideal state.
In Plato's works such a discussion occurs in the alphabetnyc.comes feels that his description of the ideal state wasn't sufficient for the purposes of entertainment and that "I would be glad to hear some account of it engaging in transactions with other states" (19b).
LOL so is what I wrote”incredibly dumb” or “true”? Because generally the truth isn’t dumb. You can refer to graphs all day but it doesn’t cancel out the anecdotal evidence of what I and many others have seen.
Boards and CEOs are more tech-savvy than they once were, but they still don't always know the best questions to ask CIOs.
With the push for digital transformation they need to be armed with the right questions at the right time. You know if I met and dated like a porn star or stripper and I could logically see that she had her shit together and had that shit behind her I could probably forgive her provided she could earn my trust that that shit was behind her.
About Anthony Dream Johnson CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth".
People with high EI know every day brings something to be thankful for—and they don’t see the world as “glass half-empty” as a lot of people do.
They feel good about their lives and don.