The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
spiltteeth
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: June 7th, 2019, 1:16 pm

How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by spiltteeth » June 7th, 2019, 1:17 pm

Classical theists make the argument for God from the contingent to the absolute, or from the conditioned to the unconditioned, like Aquinas’s 3rd way.



A devotee of Schopenhauer, I imagine, would make 3 points.


1) You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.

2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know ?


3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena.



How might one respond ? As a platonist, or theist ?

User avatar
Maffei
Posts: 38
Joined: September 7th, 2017, 7:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Spinoza

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Maffei » June 15th, 2019, 2:43 pm

Schopenhauer aside (because I don't know his philosophy),can we put those who were refuted to give then a rejoinder?
The further arguments wouldn't be the same as the first refutation?
If yes, the discussion will be worthwhile in the case of entering to a circle?

But ok, let's try to take the cosmological argument as if it were a rejoinder.

Can you accept the notion that everything that exists exist by a cause? Or do you think they came from nothing?
Have you ever asked yourself that the fact that you are a being makes you alike everything that is?
If something is, can you plainly say that it "is because it is"?
What is less convincent, to say that something is because it is or because it has came to existence?

Now think about the totality of the Universe.
Can you just say that 'it is because it is'? Or is it came from something?
Let us guess that so you concede that it couldn't came from nothing but there is only physical causes.
The physical totality would have itself a cause. The cause of totality would have a cause, that in its turn has a cause, that has a cause...
But why the physical totality has some laws of nature and not others? Wouldn't you seek the answer in something not physical?
If you say that the laws of physical totality has origins in the laws of physical totality, wouldn't you be saying that 'it is because it is' again?

How Schopenhauer answer this?

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 2269
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Felix » Yesterday, 6:11 am

spiltteeth said: You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.
I would agree with this statement.
2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know?
3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena
These two points seem to be the same. Some would say (e.g., mystics and yogis) that their awareness is not limited by time and space, and this is validated by their own experience. That is, while noumena, by definition, cannot be apprehended by the senses, they can be apprehended via intuition or extrasensory perception.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Post Reply