The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Are the Cosmological Arguments logically sound?in Religion

anonymousdebater

https://theanonymousdebater.weebly.com/

Aquinas's Cosmological Arguments make some sense, but there are certainly problems.

MayCaesar

These arguments were decent for their time, but application of the modern strict logic and scientific knowledge to them quickly reveals many errors. I will go through them one by one.

"Argument 1: Motion

If Thing A is moving, something else (Thing must have caused it to start moving. Thing C caused Thing B to move, Thing D caused Thing C to move, etc. In order to avoid this going on indefinitely (infinite regress), there must be some Thing Z, the thing that started all of this. This Thing Z is God."
- Wrong, since Thing A could have always been moving on its own. The first Newton's law states that bodies continue motion on their own for the lack of external forces - hence nothing is needed for Thing A to move. Not to mention that motion is relative, and there is always a frame of reference in which a given object is in motion.
Finally, there is nothing wrong with infinite regress, and it does not have to be avoided.

"Argument 2: Causation

A was caused by B, and B was caused by C, and C was caused by D, etc., etc. In order to avoid infinite regress, something (aka God) must be uncaused."
- Same: infinite regress may very well be the case.

"Argument 3: Contingency

A contingent thing is something that could have not existed. In order to avoid an infinite regress of contingent things, something must be non-contingent, meaning that it is necessary for it to exist. This necessary thing is God."
- Same with regards to infinite regress again. It is also not clear why "this necessary thing is God"; it does not have to be God, unless we define it as God, but in that case the concept of "God" becomes very vague.

"Argument 4: Degrees

In order to measure, you need something absolute to measure against. For there to be "degrees of perfection", there must be something perfect (God) to measure against."
- "Perfection" is a human-made concept. It is not an inherent part of nature, and us having this concept poses absolutely no constraints on the world around us. 
In addition, there could very well be nothing perfect: different degrees of perfection do not assume the existence of absolute perfection, just like different temperatures do not assume the existence of some "perfect temperature".