I go for the idea that God's existence is both analytical and synthetic. Most people might not be able to reach to God's existence through analysis, but it would be easier for them to reach to God through experience.

"Why something rather than nothing?"
It was clear that Russell was trying to avoid discussing the origin of this universe..he can see that he is part of a universe which is there and he is comfortable with that..he does not want to ask the question "how the universe came into existence?" Today scientists who follow Russells idea might say that the universe has within itself some sort of energy that is generated by itself and that energy made it be there from infinity...

The argument of Copleston that if individual elements of a series is contingent, then the total series must be contingent seems sound to me. If the universe is nothing but a collection of all the contingent elements, then one must consent that the universe is also contingent.

I think the example Russell used "Since every man has a mother then the human race must have a mother" does not apply to the universe and it's collection. Human race is an abstract class and that can not be compared with a physical universe which exists.

Russell at the end seems to be dogmatic in not even willing to entertain the idea that "asking about the cause of the universe" has a meaning. Probably he does not even believe in a "universe" to be a physical thing and rather a handy noun we human being invented. his confusion about the universe seems clear when he compared the universe with human race which has no mother and hence the universe has no cause.

I agree that a personal God might not be deduced from cosmological argument, but the argument is good in necessitating an eternal non-contingent creator of the finite contingent universe.

It is easy for us to comprehend a cause and effect within universe. But if someone's limited mind can not comprehend a cause for the universe itself, then the best a humble mind can resort to is some sort of probability, but rejecting the cause of the universe totally -based on no evidence other than the non-comprehension of the idea- must be a bold statement.

The other way out when confirming cause-effect within the universe and rejecting it for the universe itself, is to claim that the universe is the creator of all it's member and the creator of itself (unless assuming the universe is eternal).

But I was thinking that the universe is not a separate entity other than the collection of it's members. And probably Lord Russell was thinking it so when he considered it a handy man made term. So, I think if we agree that whatever members in this universe (like human being) are subject to cause and effect, then that is enough to apply the cosmological argument and point to an eternal God as the First Cause.

BR

First, you presented an evolutionary form of history of God as an argument for the next premise, but I do not agree -to start- with this version of history, rather I believe that God created mankind and the mankind is in continuous need of God even if they happen to reveal some of God's secrets through scientific advancement.

Secondly, O my Lord, I guess you are the one to whom the universe and God is riddle and not me, to me the puzzle is already solved and I ended it up to an eternal God, it is you who ended it up -probably- to a universe and find no justification yourself and does not want even someone to ask you for a justification and consider it as a puzzle, and wants to reach to an illusive feel of answering this puzzle just by avoiding any question about it.

I think you are trying to impose some kind of dictatorship in barring certain category of questioning on the basis that your mind does not comprehend it..
 

To Lord Russell who rejects the Lord...

I think claiming that a powerful eternal God is the starting point of everything, and to him stops any regress is by itself is an explanation. The theists who believe in God and the atheists who deny God, both agree that God (if exists) enjoys certain properties, and among them is creator, powerful and all-knowing.

On the other hand, both theists and atheists agree that the Universe is not as powerful and as knowledgeable as God (if exists). So, the rule of simplicity advocates to stop regression at a more powerful being when given choice to stop regression between a more powerful (God) and a less powerful being (universe).

Moreover, the very meaning of the word “God” has tied with it’s name the elements that would make it (God) not contingent. Similarly the very name of the word “universe” (consisting of only contingent members) would make it not possible to be not contingent.

Moreover, those who attempt to give scientific explanation for a universe just being there without a God always give probable answers with no certainty, and probability added to another probability will never make it a certainty. Whereas, theist when they speak about an eternal God being there since eternity, if they are true in their saying, leaves no further question.

Moreover, one might argue that since the whole issue is related to a very past incidence and we can not know about them with certainty, when we should not give any certain answer to the universe if it is created by God or was there without God. The theists who believe in God would agree to this and would argue that if God tells us that “I was there since eternity and I created the universe ex nihilo” then if these are really God’s saying then there is no room for doubt.

Moreover, I would assume that there is no such thing as Universe apart from the collection of trillions of individual members. If just one individual member is contingent then the collection as a whole becomes contingent. Hence, God must exists who is not a part of this collection, and that who has no part of him that is contingent.

Taking all these points, I would think theists argument for God is at upper hand over atheists argument for a universe being just there with no explanation.

To Russell

I think to the regress problem the atheist find it satisfactory to stop the regress at a Universe which just stayed there since eternal..

The theists move one step further and stop it at a God who created universe and is omnipotent and omniscient, and they find it satisfactory..

So both parties artificially chose to stop somewhere..Now, applying reason would favor stopping at God rather than at universe who lack the attributes of omnipotent and omniscient, etc. Besides Universe is just a collection of individual items, so when we are talking about universe we might not be talking about an individual that enjoys certain properties apart from the properties that it enjoys because of it's individual members.

So it seems to me placing God and Universe in the same level is absurd..

---

Filter +3 Excellent+2 Insightful+1 Useful0 NeutralSee All-1 Off Topic-2 Flame-3 SPAMOldest FirstNewest First50 posts25 posts15 posts5 posts 

Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site.. Such material will be removed
Name:
Email:
Comment-Tracking E-mail Alerts
Mode		New entry [Start a new Entry]
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:

Powered by OpenComment 3.0.21