Laurens
New Member
Philosophers such as William Lane Craig often seem content to believe that logical arguments are enough to fulfil the evidential burden of proof for God's existence. This could never be the case however, for reasons that are best explained with an analogy:
There is quite a reasonable argument that says, in order for everything we know about the behaviour of matter and to make sense of particle physics there must be a particle with the properties attributed to the Higgs boson. This seems sound enough, but it is not enough to prove that the particle does in fact exist. Scientists at CERN didn't hear this and turn off their particle accelerators in satisfied contentment that their goal had been achieved. Why is this so? Because a logical argument of this kind cannot be enough to prove the existence of the particle. This is because it makes the assumption that everything we know about particle physics is correct - when in actual fact it might not be.
The same goes for arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument - even if all the logic was sound, it still makes the assumption that the universe behaves in a particular way - which may turn out to be false. You'd still need something more on top of the argument to demonstrate it's validity - just as the argument for the Higgs boson needs something more before it is considered proven.
I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, but I felt like rambling. Feel free to pick out the flaws in my argument, or express your agreement, or whatever takes your fancy...
Edited to correct a spelling error
There is quite a reasonable argument that says, in order for everything we know about the behaviour of matter and to make sense of particle physics there must be a particle with the properties attributed to the Higgs boson. This seems sound enough, but it is not enough to prove that the particle does in fact exist. Scientists at CERN didn't hear this and turn off their particle accelerators in satisfied contentment that their goal had been achieved. Why is this so? Because a logical argument of this kind cannot be enough to prove the existence of the particle. This is because it makes the assumption that everything we know about particle physics is correct - when in actual fact it might not be.
The same goes for arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument - even if all the logic was sound, it still makes the assumption that the universe behaves in a particular way - which may turn out to be false. You'd still need something more on top of the argument to demonstrate it's validity - just as the argument for the Higgs boson needs something more before it is considered proven.
I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, but I felt like rambling. Feel free to pick out the flaws in my argument, or express your agreement, or whatever takes your fancy...
Edited to correct a spelling error