Fw: Fw: Kalam Cosmological Argument 2

Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:06:51 -0800 (00887893611, 2.2.32.19980219070651.006dc974@midwest.net) 

At 09:20 PM 2/18/98 -0500, Brian Dean wrote:

>> Walter writes:

>>1)  Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

>>2)  The universe began to exist.

>>3)  Therefore the universe had a cause.

>>

>    MWF 2/17   To put the final nails in the coffin of this silly 

>argument;

>

>    Premise one can only be an induction based on objects of our 

>experience, even to the extent that it is true on a macroscopic scale.

>

>    But let us grant the theist, for the sake of argument, that every 

>event within the universe requires a cause.

>

>    Their are two opposite possibilities. Either the universe IS the 

>events with which we are familiar, i.e., all that is, taken together , is the 

>universe OR the universe is that which contains the objects of our experience.

>

>    EITHER WAY, to attribute to the universe itself any of the 

>individual properties of 1.) its constituent parts or 2.) the objects which

are 

>contained within it is to commit a fallacy of composition.

>

>    E.g., The component parts used to form an airplane, the aluminum 

>frames, plastic knobs, titanium turbine blades and casings, etc. each possess 

>the property of being "light". It is a fallacy to say that the aircraft is 

>therefore light. The aircraft may indeed be quite heavy, weighing many tons.

>

>    The other type of fallacy would be to say that since college 

>students are each naive about many subjects, and even their professors are

naive 

>about many subjects, that therefore the college is naive about many

subjects. The 

>college, although it consists of its students and faculty cannot itself

possess 

>the property of "being naive".

>

>    In both cases a fallacy of composition has been committed, and the 

>examples are designed to make it obvious.

>

>    The cosmological argument is just and simply a fallacy of 

>composition.

>

>

>RON

>Is it just me or did he just explain away the origin of the universe by 

>describing airplanes and college students?????

>


TILL
If you are claiming the fallacy of false analogy, then I believe it is
incumbent on you to show why the analogy is false.

>

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net