Arguement Against God's existence

[Marc_Anthony]

Salve,

I don’t think this counts as an atheism thread since I don’t want a debate, merely refutations against a particular atheistic arguement (actually there are several I’d like refuted but just one for the thread).

Keep in mind I’'m going through no crisis of faith right now and I fully believe that these issues have been resolved by the Church, which has after all existed for 2,000 years. I’d just like to see what these refutations are.

An article I was sent by a member of the site whom shall not be named gave this refutation for the modern cosmological arguement for the existence of God. It said this:

"The Cosmological arguement, modern day:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist in reality.
2. Therefore, an infinite number of events cannot have occurred before the present.
3. Therefore, the universe began to exist.
4. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
5. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
   Craig takes this argument further by claiming that space and time came into being along with the universe, and therefore the cause of the universe must transcend both space and time. Finally, and most audaciously, he claims that the cause cannot be an impersonal natural phenomenon, because if the necessary conditions for the universe to exist had existed from eternity, the universe itself would have existed from eternity, and this is not the case; science has discovered that the universe has a finite age, beginning at the Big Bang. Therefore, Craig asserts that only a personal agent could freely will to create an effect in time.

There are several important problems with this argument. The first one lies with Craig’s claimed proof that an actual infinite cannot exist, a claim which he uses to argue that the universe must have had a finite history and therefore a beginning. Craig’s argument for this point relies on alleged self-contradictions that arise when considering the idea of an actually existing infinity. For example, the set of all numbers is infinite in size, as is the set of even numbers, but if we subtract the latter from the former the resulting set is still infinite. More importantly, Craig claims it is impossible to form an infinite set by successive addition - no matter how many times we add 1 + 1 + 1 + 1…, the sum will always be a finite number, never infinity. Therefore, no matter how many past events have occurred, there can only be a finite number of them and there still must have been a first event, a beginning to the universe. While Craig argues that a potential infinite, defined as a value that increases indefinitely without bound, can exist, he denies that an actual infinite can ever exist in reality.

It is true that an actual infinite, if such a thing existed, would possess some very strange and counterintuitive properties; for one thing, such a set could be the same size as one of its proper subsets, which is the source of most of the “absurdities” Craig claims to have pointed out. But this does not prove that such a thing is impossible, merely that the human mind cannot adequately conceive of it. There is no law that requires reality to conform to our expectations. Most people would also find the idea that light can behave both as a particle and as a wave to be counterintuitive or absurd, but nevertheless, quantum mechanics has taught us that it is so."

(Continued)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

(Continued)

Regarding the supposed impossibility of forming an infinite by successive addition, Craig’s argument makes a key faulty assumption. Of course an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition if one only has a finite number of steps to do it in. But an actual infinite can be formed by an infinite number of successive additions. In other words, there could have been an infinite number of events before now as long as there was also an infinite amount of time before now, which is exactly as we should expect. One might object that this proves that it is necessary to start with an infinite in order to get an infinite. This is true, and it is not a problem if one postulates a universe that has always existed as a brute fact requiring no further explanation, just as theists postulate a God that has always existed as a brute fact.

Finally, there is a problem with this premise that Craig does not seem to have considered, and one that shows why the kalam cosmological argument, despite its greater sophistication, is still built on special pleading. How many things does God know? An omniscient deity, obviously, would know an infinite number of things. How many things can God do? Equally obviously, an omnipotent deity would be able to do an infinite number of things. But these are not potential infinites; they are actual infinites. The number of things God knows or can do, according to traditional theism, is not increasing indefinitely without bound; it is already as great as it will ever be. Therefore, since Craig argues that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality, then he has proven by his own argument that God does not exist - at least, not an infinite god of the type conceived of by so many theists.

We next consider premise 3, which states that the universe began to exist. As Craig puts it, “The astrophysical evidence indicates that the universe began to exist in a great explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ around 15 billion years ago. Physical space and time were created in that event, as well as all the matter and energy in the universe” (p.4). Craig has far overreached himself here. Nothing about Big Bang theory implies or requires that space, time, matter or energy began to exist at that point after previously not existing. Simply stated, the Big Bang was a point at which the universe as we currently observe it was extremely hot and dense. Our current formulations of the laws of physics break down under these conditions, and so we do not know what came before that. But this does not entail that the universe itself came into existence at that point. It might well have existed in another form prior to the Big Bang. It might even have always existed, so that the Big Bang would not be its beginning but merely the least recent event in its history that we can observe. In this case, the kalam argument’s premise 3 fails and therefore the entire argument fails.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

(Continued)

It is worth noting that Craig quotes Dr. Stephen Hawking in support of his claim that time itself began at the Big Bang, but takes him out of context in so doing. As Hawking himself has said, even if there were events before the Big Bang, they would make no difference to us. “As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang” (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.49; Bantam Books, 1996). In other words, Hawking believes we should say that, as far as we are concerned, the Big Bang is when time began. That does not mean that other events could not have happened before that, merely that it is pointless to speculate because we could never know anything about them. This is not equivalent to Craig’s claim that time did not exist before the Big Bang occurred. Craig is correct to claim that it is the overwhelming scientific consensus that the Big Bang did happen, while alternatives such as the steady-state model are poorly supported by the evidence (p.8); but this does not support his particular interpretation of what the Big Bang may mean for the beginning of the universe. (Craig also erroneously cites cosmological theories such as the oscillating universe or chaotic eternal inflation as if they were alternatives to the Big Bang, when in fact they are attempts to explain what may have happened beforehand. Many of these theories, in opposition to Hawking, do postulate that events prior to the Big Bang may have had observational consequences for the universe).

Next, premise 4 holds that anything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. But we already know that this is not true. Strange as it seems, science has discovered some natural objects that come into being uncaused. One such class of object is called virtual particles. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the product of energy and time must always be greater than a certain constant; therefore, as we examine apparently empty space over shorter and shorter time scales, we discover increasingly violent, and increasingly brief, fluctuations of energy. Since energy is equivalent to matter by E = mc2, on time scales that are sufficiently short these fluctuations can be so violent as to create actual particles that exist for only a fleeting instant before returning to nothingness. These particles are not merely a hypothetical construct: they produce detectable effects that can be, and have been, experimentally measured. However, there is literally no specific cause of their existence. Nor is this phenomenon merely an inconsequential anomaly. Some physicists have proposed hypotheses in which a similar phenomenon, under the right circumstances, could have given rise to our universe.

In attempting to refute this point, Craig commits several fallacies. First, he claims that some physicists disagree that quantum fluctuations are uncaused and therefore this is not a “proven exception” (p.6) to this premise. This misses the point. To refute the kalam argument, it is not necessary to prove beyond any doubt that there are exceptions to its premises; such an unrealistically high standard of proof is impossible to meet anyway. It is only necessary to show that such an exception can exist. This would mean that there are alternative explanations for the origin of the universe, and there would therefore be no need to postulate a supernatural creator. In any case, if Craig invokes the support of a solid majority of the scientific community in support of theories such as the Big Bang, he cannot then disregard the weight of scientific opinion when it clashes with another point he wishes to make. Craig cites only one scientist (David Bohm) who believed that quantum fluctuations might be deterministic, and Bohm’s views have not been widely accepted by the physics community.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

(Continued)

Finally, even if we overlook the failure of its other premises and assume that Craig’s argument is correct so far - that the universe was caused and an actual infinite cannot exist - this still would not verify the kalam cosmological argument. It still falls victim to the same problem as the classic cosmological argument: even if we grant that the universe had a cause, how do we know the cause is anything at all like the theistic conception of God? How do we know, for example, that the universe was not caused by a timeless, impersonal natural force?

Craig attempts to refute this point as well: “If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0° Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0° from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. So if the cause is timelessly present, then the effect should be timelessly present as well” (p.5).

Again, Craig attempts to refute the wrong argument here. If the cause of the universe was timeless, it would not have existed “from eternity past”; such temporal language makes no sense if applied to a timeless phenomenon. If time came into being along with the universe, it would make no sense whatsoever to ask why the universe did not come into being at an earlier or a later time. The cause would simply be, and whenever the universe came into existence would mark the beginning of time, t = 0, by definition. If we accept that a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect, there is no problem at all with this. Alternatively, what if the cause is cyclic? It might produce a temporal universe which lasts for a certain amount of time before returning to a timeless state that causes a new universe to come into being. Or what if the cause produces multiple universes, such that our own is merely one in an endless series that extends indefinitely into a timeless past and a timeless future? Craig does not even consider these possibilities, and there seems to be no way to rule them out. The point is that, when entering intellectual realms this vast and uncharted, one must tread all the more carefully, and proponents of the kalam cosmological argument do not do this. As David Hume wrote over 200 years ago in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, “What peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call thought, that we must thus make it the model of the whole universe?” Apologists such as Craig would do well to heed such cautions.

Craig says, “The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions” (p.5-6), but this is just special pleading. On what grounds can he be so sure that an agent can act outside of time while an impersonal cause cannot? We have no experience of any type of cause acting outside time, personal or not, so claims about what types of causes can or cannot act outside of time are very premature and ill-founded at best. It seems that Craig freely exempts his preferred cause from a variety of restrictions which he rather arbitrarily applies to other potential causes.

In summary, the kalam cosmological argument, like its classic cousin, is dogged by the fallacy of special pleading. Its key premises are flawed, and even if we grant them all anyway, its conclusion still does not establish that there is a god, only that there is some cause of the universe’s existence. Whether this cause is personal or not, the cosmological argument cannot tell us, and thus it cannot suffice as a proof of the existence of God.

I’d love to see some theistic refutations of this arguement. I consider this thread a theistic thread since I merely want to see the theistic POV in responses.

 

[coolduude]

Wow! Long post! I read about half then skimmed the rest. Sorry

But here’s my rebuttal, or shall I say, support for the Kalam argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   -Well duh! The only thing the athiest might bring up are things called virtual particles. They apparently have no causes, yet they exist. In reality, virtual particles do have causes. They come out of a quantum vacuum which produces flucuations in energy, producing virtual particles (that’s very crudly put, I apologize). The athiest will try to say ‘see? Not
   everything needs a cause. The universe is no exception!’. But one must keep in mind that before the Big Bang, there was nothing- thus no fluctuations. So ‘virtual particles’ don’t apply to the BB.
2. The universe began to exist.
   -This should be easy to realize, but many athiests will try to avoid this. As the person writing the rebuttal above states, an actual infinite cannot be formed by succesive addition of finite quantities, but can be formed with infinite quantities. But again, the author points out how that’s starting with an infinite. Anyway, there is another way to debunk am actual infinite. Ask the athiest ‘what’s infinity minus 1?’ or ‘what’s infinity minus 100,000,000,000?’ they’ll obviously say ‘infinity’ so it’s here that you ask ‘how can you remove quantities, yet have the same amount? It’s impossible’. So Craig is correct in saying there are logical incoherencies in saying an actual infinite exists.

-As for the astrophysics community not saying that something came from nothing: godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

1. Therefore, the universe has a cause (God)
   -Well, once the finitude of the past is realized, it can be deduced that the universe did not always exist- it had to come from somewhere. Craig asserts that this cause is God- I believe he is correct. The cause of the universe must be uncaused, eternal (because it created time), and personal (because it must have been able to think to create the universe).
   -There also can’t be an infinite regress of creators (the actual infinite problem, again).
   -There must be an uncaused cause (perhaps the word ‘causer’ would be better )

I know this isn’t the best rebuttal, but it’s the way I see things. Also, William Lane Craig has his own website- www.reasonablefaith.org. You can sign up for free to view his complete collection of articles. This might be helpful because he has a whole section on God’s ‘omin-’ traits. Just be a little careful. He’s a little partial towards born-again Christians. Otherwise it’s a great site.

Good luck!

P.S.- link on finitude of the past- godandscience.org/slideshow/sld010.html
and link on infinite regress problem- johncwright.livejournal.com/264192.html

 

[_Locke]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   -Well duh! The only thing the athiest might bring up are things called virtual particles. They apparently have no causes, yet they exist. In reality, virtual particles do have causes. They come out of a quantum vacuum which produces flucuations in energy, producing virtual particles (that’s very crudly put, I apologize). The athiest will try to say ‘see? Not
   everything needs a cause. The universe is no exception!’. But one must keep in mind that before the Big Bang, there was nothing- thus no fluctuations. So ‘virtual particles’ don’t apply to the BB.

Let me quote the article Marc Anthony was referencing to refute you-
“If the flaw of the ontological argument is circularity, the fallacy of the cosmological argument is special pleading. Namely, it asserts without good reason that everything *except *God needs a cause. But why should this be? If anything can exist without a cause, we could just as well conclude that it is the universe itself that is uncaused, existing eternally and giving rise to all other cause and effect. This hypothesis has just as much explanatory power as the hypothesis that God created the universe, and it is more parsimonious, requiring fewer additional assumptions. Therefore, all other things being equal, it is to be preferred.”

1. The universe began to exist.
   -This should be easy to realize, but many athiests will try to avoid this. As the person writing the rebuttal above states, an actual infinite cannot be formed by succesive addition of finite quantities, but can be formed with infinite quantities. But again, the author points out how that’s starting with an infinite. Anyway, there is another way to debunk am actual infinite. Ask the athiest ‘what’s infinity minus 1?’ or ‘what’s infinity minus 100,000,000,000?’ they’ll obviously say ‘infinity’ so it’s here that you ask ‘how can you remove quantities, yet have the same amount? It’s impossible’. So Craig is correct in saying there are logical incoherencies in saying an actual infinite exists.

(once again, paraphrasing from article)
This shows a failure to understand the notion of an infinite series. In such a series, every individual event would have a perfectly good cause: the event preceding it. Alternatively, if we accept your logic on this point, we can then ask, how many thoughts did God have before creating the universe? Every thought God had must have been caused by another thought preceding it, since you claims nothing can be its own cause. But since by your argument an infinite beginningless series is impossible, God must have had a single thought preceding all others - i.e., there must have been a point at which God came into existence. We can then ask the cause of this initial thought, and so on ad infinitum.

On my own note, I’d like to add that “A set is infinite if we can remove some of its elements without reducing its size.” mathacademy.com/pr/minitext/infinity/
Yes, it’s non-intuitive, but stating it’s impossible does not make it so.

1. Therefore, the universe has a cause (God)
   -Well, once the finitude of the past is realized, it can be deduced that the universe did not always exist- it had to come from somewhere. Craig asserts that this cause is God- I believe he is correct. The cause of the universe must be uncaused, eternal (because it created time), and personal (because it must have been able to think to create the universe).
   -There also can’t be an infinite regress of creators (the actual infinite problem, again).
   -There must be an uncaused cause (perhaps the word ‘causer’ would be better )

“Within the universe, you always explained one event as being caused by some earlier event, but the existence of the universe itself could be explained in this way only if it had some beginning.” - Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

 

[R_Daneel]

Excellent summary.

You could have mentioned one more problem, which actually occurs in many of the purported arguments for God, the fallacy of composition - the unfounded generalization from the particular to the whole. Suppose that the proponents can substantiate that for every particular event, if it has a beginning, it must have an external cause (which they cannot).

Form this supposed fact it simply does not follow that the set of all events (the Universe) also must have an external cause for its existence. Maybe it does, maybe it does not. But the automatic generalization step is fallacious. Two examples: 1) all the tiles of the floor are white, therefore the whole floor is white - which is a correct generalization. And 2) all the tiles of the floor are square, therefore the whole floor is square - which is an incorrect generalization. The generalization step may be correct, or may not be correct, but is cannot be assumed to be correct, and this is the error the apologists make, when they attempt to generalize from the particular to the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

In summary, the kalam cosmological argument, like its classic cousin, is dogged by the fallacy of special pleading. Its key premises are flawed, and even if we grant them all anyway, its conclusion still does not establish that there is a god, only that there is some cause of the universe’s existence. Whether this cause is personal or not, the cosmological argument cannot tell us, and thus it cannot suffice as a proof of the existence of God.

I’d love to see some theistic refutations of this arguement. I consider this thread a theistic thread since I merely want to see the theistic POV in responses.

1. Our primary datum - and sole certainty - is the fact that we are thinking.
   2.** All philosophical arguments**, cosmological or not, presuppose that there is at least one personal, rational being.
2. The simplest, most economical, most intelligible and most adequate explanation of reality is that it has its origin in one personal, rational Being.

 

[DPMartin]

Marc Anthony
Understand your concern, I think

I realize this no scientific argument or rebuttal, but for the believer’s sake, this may help.

For some reason the disregard for the Truth, seems to be the problem in trying to get the scientific mind to see. The Truth is the Truth no matter what the Truth is. We knowing that the Word of God is Truth, understand that God spoke all things into being. For example the Truth always was always is and always will be. It always was true it always is true and it always will be true.

To claim there is no infinite is a presumption best, let alone an assumption. Those who study the laws of nature or existence seem to forget that such laws came from something, for example, gravity. How can there be form unless there be laws to give form and place to be. How can there be place to be with out order of existence? How can there be awareness to see with out light?

How can there be awareness of form, place, and light without a pre-existing knowledge and awareness, of form, place and light? With out instructions or “laws” nothing can do, or be according to the laws. Was the laws first that which started it? Or not?

It seems that the scientific view is that laws are made up according the existence rather then the other way around. But yet they know that existence responds to the laws and the laws control existence, existence does not control the laws. If one knows the laws you can make an airplane fly. But you can not change the laws and existence will without resistance obey the laws. And science knows this by studying the laws so to be of valued service. For once they have understood a particular law, men can do something he may need to do.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

1. Our primary datum - and sole certainty - is the fact that we are thinking.
   2.** All philosophical arguments**, cosmological or not, presuppose that there is at least one personal, rational being.
2. The simplest, most economical, most intelligible and most adequate explanation of reality is that it has its origin in one personal, rational Being.

Interesting arguement-may I ask how you get from point two to point three?

 

[coolduude]

Let me quote the article Marc Anthony was referencing to refute you-
“If the flaw of the ontological argument is circularity, the fallacy of the cosmological argument is special pleading. Namely, it asserts without good reason that everything *except *God needs a cause. But why should this be? If anything can exist without a cause, we could just as well conclude that it is the universe itself that is uncaused, existing eternally and giving rise to all other cause and effect. This hypothesis has just as much explanatory power as the hypothesis that God created the universe, and it is more parsimonious, requiring fewer additional assumptions. Therefore, all other things being equal, it is to be preferred.”

"The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency:

  Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

  If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

  The universe exists.

  Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

  Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

From these three premises [1,2, and 3] it follows that God exists. Now if God exists, the explanation of God’s existence lies in the necessity of his own nature, since, as even the atheist recognizes, it’s impossible for God to have a cause. So if this argument is successful, it proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe. This is truly astonishing!"
(Taken from William Lane Craig)

(once again, paraphrasing from article)
This shows a failure to understand the notion of an infinite series. In such a series, every individual event would have a perfectly good cause: the event preceding it. Alternatively, if we accept your logic on this point, we can then ask, how many thoughts did God have before creating the universe? Every thought God had must have been caused by another thought preceding it, since you claims nothing can be its own cause. But since by your argument an infinite beginningless series is impossible, God must have had a single thought preceding all others - i.e., there must have been a point at which God came into existence. We can then ask the cause of this initial thought, and so on ad infinitum.

“…omniscience need not entail knowing an infinite number of, say, propositions, much less having an infinite number of thoughts; nor need we think of omnipotence as entailing the ability to do an infinite number of actions.1 When we define omniscience as knowledge of only and all true propositions, we are expressing the extent of God’s knowledge, not its mode. The mode of God’s knowledge has traditionally been taken to be non-propositional in nature. God has a single undivided intuition of reality, which we finite knowers break up into individual bits of information called propositions. Thus, the number of propositions is at best potentially infinite. Similarly, omnipotence is not defined in terms of quanta of power possessed by God or number of actions God can perform but in terms of His ability to actualize states of affairs. As such it involves no commitment to an actual infinity of things. Therefore, there’s no reason to think that God is susceptible to the sort of quantitative analysis imagined by the objection.” (taken from William Lane Craig)

On my own note, I’d like to add that “A set is infinite if we can remove some of its elements without reducing its size.” mathacademy.com/pr/minitext/infinity/
Yes, it’s non-intuitive, but stating it’s impossible does not make it so.

So by your own admittance an actual infinite cannot exist, correct?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Our primary datum - and sole certainty - is the fact that we are thinking.
2. All philosophical arguments, cosmological or not, presuppose that there is at least one personal, rational being.
3. The simplest, most economical, most intelligible and most adequate explanation of reality is that it has its origin in one personal, rational Being.

By using the principles of simplicity, economy, intelligibility and adequacy!

We know our thoughts directly. Thoughts can hardly exist in a vacuum. The simplest and most intelligible explanation of our thoughts is that we are thinkers, i.e. rational beings. There is also ample evidence that we are not the only thinkers. So how did thinkers come into existence? The most economical and adequate explanation is that there is one Supreme Rational Being…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

By using the principles of simplicity, economy, intelligibility and adequacy!

We know our thoughts directly. Thoughts can hardly exist in a vacuum. The simplest and most intelligible explanation of our thoughts is that we are thinkers, i.e. rational beings. There is also ample evidence that we are not the only thinkers. So how did thinkers come into existence? The most economical and adequate explanation is that there is one Supreme Rational Being…

So you’re using Occam’s Razor to try and give a proof for God’s existence?

I suppose that works. It doesn’t PROVE anything, but it does make God’s existence highly probable.

 

[tonyrey]

So you’re using Occam’s Razor to try and give a proof for God’s existence?

Indeed! Why search for unnecessary complications? The onus is on pluralists to justify their view.

I suppose that works. It doesn’t PROVE anything, but it does make God’s existence highly probable.

More than that cannot be expected from a solely intellectual approach…

 

[R_Daneel]

So you’re using Occam’s Razor to try and give a proof for God’s existence?

Occam’s razor is a bit more complicated than giving a “green light” just because a hypothesis is simple. The proper way to formulate it is: “if there are two hypotheses, both of which explain the problem equally well, then we should tentatively accept the one with fewer assumptions”. The hypothesis of a supernatural being explains nothing. It simply says: “an unknowable being using unimaginable means made it somehow happen” - which is the exact antithesis of an explanation, in other words it says that an explanation is impossible. An explanation should enlighten us about the ways and means of how something happened.

I suppose that works. It doesn’t PROVE anything, but it does make God’s existence highly probable.

For the reasons stated above, it does not work.

 

[JohnDamian]

Indeed! Why search for unnecessary complications? The onus is on pluralists to justify their view.

Doesn’t it also follow from Ockhams teachings (a form of nominalism/conceptualism) that the external universe cannot be said to have any universal thing; such as goodness, redness etc. Too many people use Ockhams Razor out of the context of the works it was presented in. It was abused so much by it’s creator that he even denied the reality of universal things outside the soul in his Ordinatio. I would be wary of using any idea from this spurious philosopher.

And the general concept was used more sparingly and appropriatly by Maimonides, Aquinas, Scotus, Durand de Saint-Pourçain, Alhazen, and many more before him.

The actual quotation is Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate; “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.”. Now, applying this idea essentially one is left with a senseless nominalism, or even solipsism.

 

[rvilbig]

1. An actual infinite cannot exist in reality.

Even if the universe is eternal and infinite, the Catholic belief still remains: the universe is caused. Physicist Stephen Barr made this point well:

" I]f one thinks about it for a while, one can see that a thing can be caused without necessarily having had any beginning in time. For example, imagine that an object is illuminated by a lamp. The lamp is the cause or explanation of the object’s being illuminated. However, nothing in that fact tells us whether the lamp has been illuminating the object for a finite time or for infinite time. If the lamp has always been illuminating the object, then the illumination of the object had no beginning, but nevertheless it always had a cause" (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 33)

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Marc_Anthony]

JohnDamian, you seem to be knowledgeable about philosophy. How exactly would you respond to this?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Even if the universe is eternal and infinite, the Catholic belief still remains: the universe is caused. Physicist Stephen Barr made this point well:

" I]f one thinks about it for a while, one can see that a thing can be caused without necessarily having had any beginning in time. For example, imagine that an object is illuminated by a lamp. The lamp is the cause or explanation of the object’s being illuminated. However, nothing in that fact tells us whether the lamp has been illuminating the object for a finite time or for infinite time. If the lamp has always been illuminating the object, then the illumination of the object had no beginning, but nevertheless it always had a cause" (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 33)

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

Interesting point; I’ve never thought of that.

 

[JohnDamian]

JohnDamian, you seem to be knowledgeable about philosophy. How exactly would you respond to this?

I shall give it a shot; from the start! I am not too familiar with Craig’s work, I didn’t like his version of the cosmological argument and I think he is too popularist and not a serious academic.

It is true that an actual infinite, if such a thing existed, would possess some very strange and counterintuitive properties; for one thing, such a set could be the same size as one of its proper subsets, which is the source of most of the “absurdities” Craig claims to have pointed out. But this does not prove that such a thing is impossible, merely that the human mind cannot adequately conceive of it. There is no law that requires reality to conform to our expectations.

The potentially infinite is unknown, because only to the extent that something is in act it is knowable. But it is not so unknown that it would be impossible for an actual infinite intellect to know it; nontheless a potential infinite cannot be conceived by even an intellect which proceeds to know it in the way that is infinite. For, it is infinite only in so far as the mind in considering only one thing after another never comes to an end. Now the mind which considers only one thing after another in this way always considers something finite, and never something infinite. An infinite intellect, which is infinite in quality - and not in numerical unity, can conceive this one thing at once; and not in a sequencial modum; thus - any object can be conceived instantaneously. Therefore, we are left with the fact even if we actualise such a conception; that if it is concieved methodically it proceeds to be only a potential infinite; and if it is concieved instantaneously - it is seen as individual and singular ; and all the space around it illustrates it’s potential extension! Thus! No infinite can exist.

But these are not potential infinites; they are actual infinites

You assume a numerical univocity – these are infinite in quale–; If every real unity is numerical unity; evert real diversity is numerical diversity. The consequent is false, for every numerical diversity, insofar as it is numerical is equal. And so all things would be equally distinct, it follows from such nonsense that the intellect could not abstract some commonality from Socrates and Plato any more than it can from Socrates and a line. Every universal would be a pure figment of the intellect. I’ll mention here that I am a Realist.

It might even have always existed, so that the Big Bang would not be its beginning but merely the least recent event in its history that we can observe. In this case, the kalam argument’s premise 3 fails and therefore the entire argument fails.

I will agree that the Kalaam is the worst rendoration of the cosmological argument. However, the Big bang as an event is irrelevant to the nessecary finitude of time (& causal chains).

One such class of object is called virtual particles

Virtual particles are caused. They emerge from energy.

Most of the other criticisms of Craig’s argument seem fair. I have never been a fan of his, if you want a real argument for the existence of God go to Bl Duns Scotus, scholastic philosopher, critic of Aquinas, teacher of William of Ockham etc.;

Here is a rendition of A TREATISE ON GOD AS FIRST PRINCIPLE:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM