Talk:Cosmological argument

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cosmological argument article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Philosophy: Logic / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

Christianity: Theology Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Hume's counter-arguments

Could they do with their own section? They are commonly used as an objection to cosmological arguments from what I've read. I'm talking about things like his assertion that a posteriori reasoning alone allows us to deduce cause and effect relationships, and that an effect can be conceived to exist in the mind without a cause.--Phil of rel (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert for new section "Cosmological argument and infinite regress"

Today I added the section "Cosmological argument and infinite regress", which was promptly reverted by User:William M. Connolley with the justification that "pleaase don't dump in text from other pages".

First of all, I would like to point out that the material added is not a one-to-one copy from the original article. The material was rewritten in various ways, some passages were left out and others were newly added. I'm not sure whether the editor responsible for this revert was aware of this since the revert took place only minutes after adding the material without much time to get familiar with it.
Second, I think there is no guideline against using material from one article in another, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Please let me know if you find this line of thought convincing and whether there are other objections to the material in question. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's just too much text and mild rephrasing doesn't get round the problem. It's also too much on IR, which is clearly you pet, and not too relevant in detail here William M. Connolley (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can discern, you advance two arguments against the material:

(1) It is similar to material appearing in another article.

(2) It is not relevant enough.

I have already answered (1) in my last post. If you have something to add to this argument then please do so.

As for (2), I've added many sources on the relation between the cosmological argument and the infinite regress. For example, from the reference "Huemer": "The Cosmological Argument (concerning the Regress of Causes): This argument claims that because an infinite regress of causes is impossible, the universe must have a first cause, that is, something that was not itself caused by anything but that caused everything else." The SEP article on the cosmological argument talks about the infinite regress in various sections, including the lead. You can also have a look at this article. I think these reliable sources establish the relevance. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the similarity to another article carries much weight, but since you seem to think so: for this section I get 28% content match on https://www.prepostseo.com/plagiarism-comparison-search and 21% on https://www.duplichecker.com/comparison . Phlsph7 (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that a certain passage is not relevant than please cite it here so we can assess its relevancy. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed page move: 'Cosmological argument' to 'Cosmological arguments'

I'd like to propose to move this page to 'Cosmological arguments' since it deals with multiple comsological arguments. The literature I've looked at makes a distinction between cosmological arguments that use things like causal finitism vs the principle of sufficient reason. Wouldn't it be more academic (and more consistent with wikipedia's style) to label this page 'Cosmological arguments'?--Phil of rel (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning makes sense, but I just had a look: both the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy call their article "Cosmological argument". The reason may be that, according to the Stanford article, "The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I had forgotten that there are common features underlying all cosmological arguments. I suppose that it would be technically incorrect and probably inconsistent with Wiki policy to rename the page. I withdraw the proposal.--Phil of rel (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncaused causer" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Uncaused causer and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Uncaused causer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The William Lane Craig "inifinty is impossible" is nonsense

The large majority of mathematicians agree that infinity is real and yet there's no rebuttal to this very amateurish and naïve line of argumentation. Surely someone has a citation of any serious mathematician that concludes that "infinity" exists and is real, at which point this line of argument false apart completely. Instead it stands unquestioned and without criticism as if it was a serious argument. Arcade222 (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

वास्तव मै ब्रह्मांड नाम कि कोई चीज हाय ही नहीं इसेबहारी दुनिया द्वारा प्रोग्राम किया गया है

और आगे की बात में तब बताऊंगा जब मुझे 27.61.109.31 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]