Is the Cosmological Argument valid?
Google Web Definitions:
Valid - (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
Yes because...
Side Score: 2
|
No because...
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
Here is the general sum of the cosmological argument: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Yes, this is perfectly valid. Same way this is valid. 1. All Pop-Tarts are tasty. 2. Apples are tasty. 3. Apples are Pop-Tarts. This is valid, but the premises aren't true. This argument wouldn't be sound. So returning to the cosmological argument...premise 2 may stop some people. Since we don't know if the universe truly began or merely always was. We just accept the notion that it may have been created. I probably was. I have no clue. In conclusion, yes. The cosmological argument is valid, but may not be particularly sound. Side: Yes because...
1
point
1
point
|
The argument: P1: Whatever begins to exist had a cause P2: The universe began to exist C: Therefore the universe had a cause P2: Is based on an assumption that is yet to attain validity. All ideas about a beginning to the universe remain theory with little else to support them. Therefore the argument, needing both P1 + P2 to reach C is not logically valid Side: No because...
1
point
|