A little bit about Philosophy...
Created | Updated Jan 28, 2002
Right... well where does one begin?
Let's start with the beginning... The Cosmological Argument.
(At this point people shouls note that "Argument" in philosophical terms almost always is an abbreviation of "Argument for (or towards) the Exiistence of God")
Basically the argument runs thus...
1) Everything that exists needs to have been created, this is an observation...
2) The universe exists, this too is an observation...
3) Therefore the universe must have been created, logical step...
or...
1) Everything that moves need to have been caused to move, this is an observation...
2) Things move, ditto...
3) There something must have started the things moving...
4) Therefore something must have moved without having been moved...
And, as Thomas Aquinas would put it, this creator, this "unmoved mover" is what we call God... Easy wasn't it... no...
Why the "Unmoved mover"? Well think for a second... If God exists... Then by point one he/she/it must too have been created... Problem...
Either...
1) God was created and is, therefore, not the creator of all things or...
2) God exists in a way different from the rest of the universe... He/she/it (b****r this for a game of soldiers... from now on it's 'he' and you'll lump it...) God doesn't have to be created... Which is not really very satisfying... Why, then, could the universe not exist like that?
Point no. 2 is the proposal of one Bertrand Russell... Nice Chap apparently... Gave a lecture to my Philosopher teacher once... The universe is "a brute fact"... It isn't coming from anywhere, it isn't going anywhere... It just is.
Problem... The universe just being is fine... But how then is it moving... If there is no start then how did things start to move? We have a problem... Dispite the fact that there is no philosophical problem with denying that there is any truth in the theory of causality... not many people like to think this way... If fact none... Well maybe one or two... But they're wierd....
And that's as far as anyone has got really... Coppleston and Russell left the argument in a dead lock after a radio debate... The problem is that once you accept the first two observations (that things happen/exist and cannot happen/exist of their own accord) you are logically obliged to work your way to God... All you can do is deny causality (which is an equally valid standpoint) which means that you cannot disprove either side... Both are based on undisprovable faith statements and that's that... Whilst we're on the beginning we may as well go onto the Design Argument... But not right now...
Let's start with the beginning... The Cosmological Argument.
(At this point people shouls note that "Argument" in philosophical terms almost always is an abbreviation of "Argument for (or towards) the Exiistence of God")
Basically the argument runs thus...
1) Everything that exists needs to have been created, this is an observation...
2) The universe exists, this too is an observation...
3) Therefore the universe must have been created, logical step...
or...
1) Everything that moves need to have been caused to move, this is an observation...
2) Things move, ditto...
3) There something must have started the things moving...
4) Therefore something must have moved without having been moved...
And, as Thomas Aquinas would put it, this creator, this "unmoved mover" is what we call God... Easy wasn't it... no...
Why the "Unmoved mover"? Well think for a second... If God exists... Then by point one he/she/it must too have been created... Problem...
Either...
1) God was created and is, therefore, not the creator of all things or...
2) God exists in a way different from the rest of the universe... He/she/it (b****r this for a game of soldiers... from now on it's 'he' and you'll lump it...) God doesn't have to be created... Which is not really very satisfying... Why, then, could the universe not exist like that?
Point no. 2 is the proposal of one Bertrand Russell... Nice Chap apparently... Gave a lecture to my Philosopher teacher once... The universe is "a brute fact"... It isn't coming from anywhere, it isn't going anywhere... It just is.
Problem... The universe just being is fine... But how then is it moving... If there is no start then how did things start to move? We have a problem... Dispite the fact that there is no philosophical problem with denying that there is any truth in the theory of causality... not many people like to think this way... If fact none... Well maybe one or two... But they're wierd....
And that's as far as anyone has got really... Coppleston and Russell left the argument in a dead lock after a radio debate... The problem is that once you accept the first two observations (that things happen/exist and cannot happen/exist of their own accord) you are logically obliged to work your way to God... All you can do is deny causality (which is an equally valid standpoint) which means that you cannot disprove either side... Both are based on undisprovable faith statements and that's that... Whilst we're on the beginning we may as well go onto the Design Argument... But not right now...
