Isaac's Meandering Musings

Below are some useful links on different versions of the cosmological argument: Kalam argument: Reasonable Faith video: ' The Kalam Cosmological Argument '. William Lane Craig's ' The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Plantinga Conference 2014 '. William Lane Craig's ' The Kalam Cosmological Argument '. William Lane Craig's ' Excursus on Natural Theology, Part 8: The Kalam Cosmological Argument '. William Lane Craig's ' Excursus on Natural Theology, Part 9: 1st Philosophical Argument for the Beginning of the Universe '. William Lane Craig's ' Excursus on Natural Theology, Part 10: 2nd Philosophical Argument for the Beginning of the Universe '. William Lane Craig's ' Excursus on Natural Theology, Part 11: 1st Scientific Confirmation of the Beginning of the Universe, Part 1 '. William Lane Craig's ' Excursus on natural Theology, Part 12: 1st Scientific Confirmation of the Beginning of t...

One defining feature of much pop atheism today is the way in which atheists spend so much time and energy attacking arguments that theists don't actually defend. The approach goes something like this: (1) State a version of an argument that sounds vaguely like a real theistic argument, but is different in one or more ways crucial to the argument, (2) Quickly demonstrate that this argument is silly, inconsistent or self-contradictory, (3) Imply that this is a trend common to all theistic arguments, (4) Ridicule religious apologists for the superficiality of their arguments. As I have noted in a previous post , there are a number of such pseudo-arguments critiqued by atheists as 'the' cosmological argument. In each case, atheists subtly (or not so subtly) change a key premise in a real version of the argument so that the argument doesn't make sense. This problem of misinterpreting arguments is not limited to cosmological arguments. I have encountered popular misinterpreta...

In a previous post, I wrote about some of the different types of arguments for the existence of God. In this post, I will elaborate on one type of argument: the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument has, typically, been regarded as the central argument for God's existence. At least, this appears to have been the view of philosophers such as Aristotle, Plotinus, al-Kindi, Avicenna (Ibn Sina), al-Ghazali, Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Moses Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Samuel Clarke, Gottfried Leibniz, and many others. The purpose of the cosmological argument has been to argue from the existence of the cosmos (material reality) to the existence of a First Cause of the cosmos, that is (to use a number of the terms used): 'unmoved mover', 'necessary being', 'pure act', 'subsistent being itself', 'the One', etc. Each of these terms has a specific meaning within its metaphysical context, but they all essentially conclude to the ...

When I started out writing my list of books on the existence of God, I initially intended only to write a list of the best, or at least most significant, books on the existence of God. I failed. The list just got longer and longer. This was good, actually, because I ended up finding many books I would otherwise have missed. Nevertheless, I feel that a short list is required, for those who would regard my list as too intimidating. So a short list has been compiled below. Books arguing for the existence of God: Historically Significant Texts 1. Aristotle's Physics (Book VIII, 4-6), and Metaphysics (Book XII, 1-6), 2. Plotinus' The Enneads (Book VI), 3. Avicenna's The Book of Healing (Book VIII), 4. Al-Ghazahli's The Incoherence of the Philosophers , 5. Averroes' The Exposition of the Methods of Proof and The Incoherence of the Incoherence , 6. Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed , 7. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles (Book I) and ...