Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
it doesn't prove ~B
Correct, ~B is assumed in the cosmological argument. it has to be supported separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nek777
Ok, I hope this isn't threadjacking.... But, how does one get to ~B.
that's the tricky part. The assumption of ~B is unsupported (or at least unproven, there are some intuitive reasons to think it may be false). Even if ~B is correct, it may be impossible to prove.
but the reason many people (both atheist and theist) think B is false is something along the lines of 'if B is true, that would mean that a set of things as a whole would have a characteristic that none of its members possesses'. ie, the infinite chain of caused causes would itself have to be uncaused.
I think people try to do proof by contradiction, something along the lines of there are '2 kinds of sets those whose characteristics are drawn from its members and those who can have characteristics that none of its members possess' - and then continue to show that causation is a property that fits in the first type of set, where the set can only draw from its members. So, since the chain must be caused, that's a contradiction and the infinite chain of caused causes can't exist.
I definitely don't think i've properly represented that argument so don't both attacking it, i know its incomplete and horrible. but in the end, even when stated better - its not proof of ~B. There is no proof of ~B. Its only something that you read and think, ok yea, B is probably false.
But its important to keep in mind, thinking B is false has essentially no implications on religion. Even if you acknowledge that B is probably false, and by argument, A is then probably true, you don't have to call the first cause God. You can agree with the cosmological argument and then suggest that the first cause is just unknown laws of physics or mother nature or whatever - which is what many nonreligious theists think of as god anyway.