Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

slickwombat t1_izfh3jl wrote

Reply to comment by Coconutcabbie in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 05, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

You seem to mean cosmological arguments rather than ontological arguments. Of cosmological arguments, you seem to specifically have in mind the Kalam, as other varieties don't rely on the assumption of a "caused beginning".

But anyway, Kant talks a great deal about the idea of reason as inevitably seeking the unconditioned as the conclusion of a regress of explanations and problems arising therefrom. I'm not comfortable enough with Kant's nuances and subtleties to attempt any more thorough explanation from that, but here's an overview from smarter people.

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izgxm4t wrote

I'm currently reading, "the psychology of totalitarianism", the author suggests that much social anxiety is created from our inability to be confident in what we try to express with each 9ther.

Words are an expression of what we think, but if we each assume different meanings from words without knowing, how can we be sure of anything?

I understand the cosmological argument to mean, how the universe begun.

The ontological argument is about the nature of being.

I am guilty of confusing the 2, but can they be separated?

Can anything exist if it has no witness?

Is there a cosmological argument without an ontological one first?

It stands to reason, all things must exist if only to oppose non existence.

All truth resonates out of hypocrisy.

1