Given that I’m the author of several For Dummies books and a title on natural theology, I thought I might be qualified to offer some simplified (but hopefully not simplistic, aha!) thoughts on cosmological arguments.
I spent a lot of time reading this and an equal amount of time reading Edward Feser's article on cosmological arguments. This is the link in the "god of the gaps" comment in the second paragraph above
After reading both, it is hard to add anything of consequence. But I will offer something that was discussed elsewhere and its implications. Namely, that there exists two possibilities for anything existing. One is that everything is a result of infinite regress or existed forever. As things changed over infinity, all possibilities appeared.
Second, certain things just appeared out of nothing. (I consider things such as quantum fields just another instance of something both in the present and the past and not examples of nothing as some cosmologists have claimed.)
I have not seen any other explanation for existence so the following is based on these two possibilities. Existence forever or called infinite regress has implications. This is not an attempt to explain why it happened or if it could actually have a beginning but assumes just the opposite that it had no beginning. It just is. This is to address some implications of infinite regress and dismiss it as a possibility.
If anything is physically possible, then it must have happened some place in the succession of events in the infinite regress. Otherwise explain why it could not have happened. So this means that anything that is possible not only happened, it must have happened an infinite number of times. So the typing of this comment happened an infinite number of times in the past. This is called infinite recurrence and was endorsed by Nietzsche.
Another implication is that there must have been entities of unlimited knowledge and power during the infinite regress. If one disagrees, then explain why such entities could not have existed. And not just one but an infinite number of these entities must have existed. Could they have the power and knowledge to create universes? Where are they today?
So the argument goes that there cannot be an infinite regress because of the absurdities it would imply. Which means that at some point, material things began and they appeared out of nothing. If one disagrees, then explain why this is not the only logical explanation.
This leads to a possible explanation supported by the traditional classical theism view of existence that there must exist an entity that has as its essence, self existence. Or there must be a creator of what we call existence.
Both Flynn and Feser provide a lot more substance. Feser is especially cogent in pointing out the absurdity of the atheist's and agnostic's argument and how they use logical fallacies to justify their positions. The more interesting thing is why are these recognized intellectuals so readily guilty of fallacious reasoning.
Aside: Closer To Truth had a series of atheists justify their position and all to a person were logically incoherent. This alone says a lot about the truth for a creator. Feser discusses this phenomena in the long essay linked to above.
I spent a lot of time reading this and an equal amount of time reading Edward Feser's article on cosmological arguments. This is the link in the "god of the gaps" comment in the second paragraph above
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
After reading both, it is hard to add anything of consequence. But I will offer something that was discussed elsewhere and its implications. Namely, that there exists two possibilities for anything existing. One is that everything is a result of infinite regress or existed forever. As things changed over infinity, all possibilities appeared.
Second, certain things just appeared out of nothing. (I consider things such as quantum fields just another instance of something both in the present and the past and not examples of nothing as some cosmologists have claimed.)
I have not seen any other explanation for existence so the following is based on these two possibilities. Existence forever or called infinite regress has implications. This is not an attempt to explain why it happened or if it could actually have a beginning but assumes just the opposite that it had no beginning. It just is. This is to address some implications of infinite regress and dismiss it as a possibility.
If anything is physically possible, then it must have happened some place in the succession of events in the infinite regress. Otherwise explain why it could not have happened. So this means that anything that is possible not only happened, it must have happened an infinite number of times. So the typing of this comment happened an infinite number of times in the past. This is called infinite recurrence and was endorsed by Nietzsche.
Another implication is that there must have been entities of unlimited knowledge and power during the infinite regress. If one disagrees, then explain why such entities could not have existed. And not just one but an infinite number of these entities must have existed. Could they have the power and knowledge to create universes? Where are they today?
So the argument goes that there cannot be an infinite regress because of the absurdities it would imply. Which means that at some point, material things began and they appeared out of nothing. If one disagrees, then explain why this is not the only logical explanation.
This leads to a possible explanation supported by the traditional classical theism view of existence that there must exist an entity that has as its essence, self existence. Or there must be a creator of what we call existence.
Both Flynn and Feser provide a lot more substance. Feser is especially cogent in pointing out the absurdity of the atheist's and agnostic's argument and how they use logical fallacies to justify their positions. The more interesting thing is why are these recognized intellectuals so readily guilty of fallacious reasoning.
Aside: Closer To Truth had a series of atheists justify their position and all to a person were logically incoherent. This alone says a lot about the truth for a creator. Feser discusses this phenomena in the long essay linked to above.