Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!seismo!columbia!cheshire.columbia.edu!hoffman
From: hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu (Edward Hoffman)
Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion,net.origins
Subject: Re: The Cosmological Argument
Message-ID: <2938@columbia.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Aug-86 14:03:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: columbia.2938
Posted: Wed Aug 13 14:03:34 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Aug-86 00:32:53 EDT
References: <15222@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: nobody@columbia.UUCP
Reply-To: hoffman@cheshire.UUCP (Edward Hoffman)
Organization: Columbia University CS Department
Lines: 26
Xref: linus net.religion:10393 talk.religion:2 net.origins:3357

In article <15222@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>  We know that something exists. Suppose we grant that things cannot
>exist without a reason (Leibniz called this "the principle of sufficient
>reason"). It then follows that there must be a reason why something exists.

Well, I think this is where the argument collapses.  To state that things exist
for a reason implies that there was an intent to put them there.  This impli-
cation in and of itself assumes the existence of a god.  This existence, of 
course, is then supposed to be "demonstrated" by the argument.  Thus, the
argument is circular.

>   Clearly, with all the postulations and suppositions involved, this is 
>not a proof for the existence of God. It will be interesting to see if anyone
>cares either to fix it or to rip it to shreds and stomp on the pieces.

I wouldn't call this "ripping it to shreds", just pointing out the main flaw
of the argument.



Edward Hoffman

ARPAnet:  hoffman@cheshire.columbia.edu
BITnet:   CC4.EA-HOFFMAN@CU20A
UUCP:     ...![seismo,topaz]!columbia!cheshire!hoffman