(waynemlj;35794)
The argument doesn't "empirically" prove the existence of God. It logically proves the eternal existence of a Being who is transcendent -- of a much higher order than we are, infinitely higher -- because this Being is SELF-EXISTENT. He does not begin or end, is above and outside of time and very "other" to us.
What it proves is the existence of something which we don't understand. A different theory of causality, time, or existence, for example. Why is it inconceivable that the universe be eternal, and that its timespan is cyclical? Why is this more outrageous than God being eternal? Well, our intuition is to say that we can't understand the transcendent nature of God. He can do things that natural science can't, but we don't understand why. But that's not very informative - we've "solved the problem" by positing something we don't understand. How is that different from "solving the problem" by saying there's something in science that explains it, but we don't understand that either? It doesn't have any more explanatory power. In fact, since the cosmological argument doesn't prove that this transcendent being is intelligent or sentient, or that resembles any God that we know, the two are exactly the same thing - something we don't understand. Something not bound by the rules of science as we know it. An unknown scientific discovery fits this criterion just as God does.Richard Dawkins - though I almost hesitate to quote him for his relentless criticism of religion - made an interesting point concering our ability to comprehend the origins of the universe. He notes that creatures evolve to comprehend the world in certain ways. Most objects, for example, are about 90% empty space, but we view them as being solid, because we have evolved to see them this way because it is useful. There are certain basic and unescapable empirical categories by which we make sense of the world that are rooted in our very biology. Something like the universe's origins, then, may be stranger than we can even suppose. There are limitations on what we can understand as human beings. Perhaps we can never fully understand God, if we believe he exists. Or perhaps we can never fully understand other things about the universe. It doesn't seem quite right to substitute God as an explainer for what may well simply be the limits of our own cognitive capacities.Those are my thoughts on the cosmological argument, anyways. I'm sure you can find other objections if you look them up, but most of them segue into theories in quantum physics, which I think misses the point of a lot of what is wrong with the argument. The cosmological argument fails regardless of what insights quantum physics can supply.Also, I'm curious as to the form of the ontological argument you are using. Of all of the proofs of God's existence, I find the ontological ones to be the least convincing.
The argument doesn't "empirically" prove the existence of God. It logically proves the eternal existence of a Being who is transcendent -- of a much higher order than we are, infinitely higher -- because this Being is SELF-EXISTENT. He does not begin or end, is above and outside of time and very "other" to us.
What it proves is the existence of something which we don't understand. A different theory of causality, time, or existence, for example. Why is it inconceivable that the universe be eternal, and that its timespan is cyclical? Why is this more outrageous than God being eternal? Well, our intuition is to say that we can't understand the transcendent nature of God. He can do things that natural science can't, but we don't understand why. But that's not very informative - we've "solved the problem" by positing something we don't understand. How is that different from "solving the problem" by saying there's something in science that explains it, but we don't understand that either? It doesn't have any more explanatory power. In fact, since the cosmological argument doesn't prove that this transcendent being is intelligent or sentient, or that resembles any God that we know, the two are exactly the same thing - something we don't understand. Something not bound by the rules of science as we know it. An unknown scientific discovery fits this criterion just as God does.Richard Dawkins - though I almost hesitate to quote him for his relentless criticism of religion - made an interesting point concering our ability to comprehend the origins of the universe. He notes that creatures evolve to comprehend the world in certain ways. Most objects, for example, are about 90% empty space, but we view them as being solid, because we have evolved to see them this way because it is useful. There are certain basic and unescapable empirical categories by which we make sense of the world that are rooted in our very biology. Something like the universe's origins, then, may be stranger than we can even suppose. There are limitations on what we can understand as human beings. Perhaps we can never fully understand God, if we believe he exists. Or perhaps we can never fully understand other things about the universe. It doesn't seem quite right to substitute God as an explainer for what may well simply be the limits of our own cognitive capacities.Those are my thoughts on the cosmological argument, anyways. I'm sure you can find other objections if you look them up, but most of them segue into theories in quantum physics, which I think misses the point of a lot of what is wrong with the argument. The cosmological argument fails regardless of what insights quantum physics can supply.Also, I'm curious as to the form of the ontological argument you are using. Of all of the proofs of God's existence, I find the ontological ones to be the least convincing.