Cosmological Argument

[Tyrion]

Well, that isn’t Craig’s proposition, but I’m certain he would say it’s correct. Something being the internal cause of its own existence isn’t coherent, because that “something” has to exist before it could cause itself to exist.

I just wanted to be precise.

You mean an inductive conclusion based upon all instances of things beginning to exist observed in human history. For every other inductive conclusion we see with that amount of evidence, we call it a fact.

No, we call it a tentative fact. In the natural sciences there are no dogmatic utterances. We must be open to the possibility (not matter how small it might be) that our inductive reasoning must be amended. or even discarded. This is the basic problem with the first premise. The truth is that I should just stop this post right here. Too bad that I already invested time and energy into answering the other points. Oh, well…

Except by all of the inductive evidence at our disposal. And then there’s the inconvenient fact that there has never been an observation of something beginning to exist without a cause.

Space-time-matter-energy has been observed. No cause has ever been discerned for their existence. That is what the cosmological argument attempts to establish. And, of course, fails.

No, there is Craig’s other argument that the alternative is unintelligible. Let’s look at the alternative: There is at least one thing (the universe) that begins to exist that does not have a cause. Nevermind for a moment that there is no inductive evidence to support that conclusion. What does it mean? For a thing to begin to exist (the universe) without a cause means there is no-thing that causes it to exist. Nothing causes it to exist. Maybe you could expound on the special properties of “nothing” that enable it to cause things to exist.

Again, an incorrect dichotomy. If something does not have a cause for its existence, then it simply exists. No one argues that “nothing” gave birth to something. So the question (as presented) is a red herring.

This is incorrect. If an agent isn’t the cause of his own decisions then there is no free will. Exactly the opposite of what you argue.

The decision has no external cause! The original arguments states (implicitly) that the universe is one, huge causal chain. I am arguing that new causal chains come into existence by our uncaused decisions, which are the result of our free will.

Again though, this isn’t Craig’s primary argument. If you deny P(2) that the universe began to exist, then here’s your alternative: the universe did not begin to exist. Now what are your choices? The universe always existed, leading to the unresolvable infinite regress that you rejected earlier. You could always claim, well, the universe doesn’t exist! Just say Craig’s name and sit back and watch. It’s like magic.

Again, you disregard the obvious. Time is not absolute. There is no such thing as “time” outside the universe. Therefore the concept that the universe “simply exists” does not lead to an infinite regress, nor does it lead to “nothing gave birth to something”. It simply relegates the question about the “emergence” of the universe to the same category as the objects which reside to the north from the North Pole.

Correct, and it’s something we all learned in Logic 101. My statement only applied to the form of the syllogism. Now if you could get around to giving some reasons to reject the truth of the premises, then you won’t be compelled to accept the truth of the conclusion. Still waiting on that part though.

I already did. Several times, lately at the top of this post.

The question that you find meaningless, “how did there come to be a universe?” has no implications for (1), (2) & (3). It can’t, because the only conclusion drawn is that “the universe has a cause of its existence.” Do you agree or disagree that the universe has a cause of its existence?

I see no reason to agree. The argument is incorrect, as I already stated many times.

 

[Eleve]

No, we call it a tentative fact.

Really? When Jenny McCarthy says that vaccinations cause autism, isn’t it a fact that she’s wrong? If you say “Every single credible study has failed to find any effect of vaccinations on the rate of autism, while numerous studies have found that vaccinations significantly mitigate the risk of serious illness and death,” is Jenny McCarthy entitled to say “Those are just tentative facts”?

In the natural sciences there are no dogmatic utterances. We must be open to the possibility (not matter how small it might be) that our inductive reasoning must be amended. or even discarded. This is the basic problem with the first premise.

As I’ve already argued here, this isn’t a problem for the cosmological argument at all.

 

[tdgesq]

No, we call it a tentative fact.

Who calls valid inductive conclusions “tentative facts?” Certainly not the accepted nomenclature of science, philosophy or even venacular speech. That you’ve had to invent a new term should serve as a signal that something is very wrong with your argument.

In the natural sciences there are no dogmatic utterances. We must be open to the possibility (not matter how small it might be) that our inductive reasoning must be amended. or even discarded.

So what? Craig’s argument is inductively strong. All inductive conclusions, no matter the strength of the argument, could possibly be incorrect, despite how unlikely it may be. Everybody understands that. But if there’s no reason to reject an inductively strong argument, why would one reject it and accept an argument that has no inductive support? lol.

Space-time-matter-energy has been observed. No cause has ever been discerned for their existence. That is what the cosmological argument attempts to establish.

Correct, just everything else that has come to exist has been observed to have causal conditions. But you would reject applying a strong inductive conclusion to the beginning of the universe because . . . . (silence)

Again, an incorrect dichotomy. If something does not have a cause for its existence, then it simply exists. No one argues that “nothing” gave birth to something. So the question (as presented) is a red herring.

Well, we have “something” and we have “nothing.” They are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive concepts. It seems you have conceded that “nothing” can’t give birth to universe. So did “something” give birth to the universe or “nothing”? Your answer: it simply exists, just begs the question about the creation of the universe. Begging the question is a fallacy, by the way.

Again, you disregard the obvious. Time is not absolute. There is no such thing as “time” outside the universe. Therefore the concept that the universe “simply exists” does not lead to an infinite regress, nor does it lead to “nothing gave birth to something”. It simply relegates the question about the “emergence” of the universe to the same category as the objects which reside to the north from the North Pole.

This is so wrong. Asserting that something is north of the northernmost point is a logical contradiction. How do you know that time doesn’t exist outside the universe? Various multiverse theorists disagree with you. Asserting that nothing can exist apart from the time in our universe is simply your own metaphysical bias. But it doesn’t really matter, because Craig never argues that something exists “before” time, or even that the cause of the beginning of the universe must be prior (in time) to the effect of the existence of the universe. So what are the implicit contradictions again in P(1) & P(2)?

If you believe there is a contradiction implicit in the premises, then you need to demonstrate it. Using analogies that don’t apply and continuing with religious-like dogmatic conclusions that these propositions are meaningless aren’t apt to convince anyone of your position.

 

[tdgesq]

Really? When Jenny McCarthy says that vaccinations cause autism, isn’t it a fact that she’s wrong? If you say “Every single credible study has failed to find any effect of vaccinations on the rate of autism, while numerous studies have found that vaccinations significantly mitigate the risk of serious illness and death,” is Jenny McCarthy entitled to say “Those are just tentative facts”?

Thank you for demonstrating this. A full out attack on inductive knowledge is rarely a winning (or truth-seeking) tactic, as you have shown.

 

[Tyrion]

Thank you for demonstrating this. A full out attack on inductive knowledge is rarely a winning (or truth-seeking) tactic, as you have shown.

I do not attack science, or its methods. I am attacking the elevation of scientific observations to unquestionable, dogmatic metaphysical statements. No matter how “strong” is the intuition, it does matter - it does not create a metaphysical principle. If you do not understand this difference, it is not my fault, nor it is my problem. And I have already answered all your objections.

 

[Eleve]

For like the third time, metaphysical claims do not need to be “dogmatic” or “unquestionable” in order to be metaphysical. You’re after a strawman.

 

[Tyrion]

For like the third time, metaphysical claims do not need to be “dogmatic” or “unquestionable” in order to be metaphysical. You’re after a strawman.

Looks like you still do not get the point. Sure, anyone can make a “claim”, metaphysical or not. So what? Claims are dime a dozen. Here we have a claim which is supposed to be the foundation of a “proof” for God’s existence. Such a claim requires an ironclad proof, if its corollary is to be taken seriously. Just to say that it is supported by some intuition is worthless. Do you understand it now?

 

[Eleve]

I understand what you’re saying perfectly. You express yourself very clearly. However, what you are saying is still flatly wrong. The cosmological argument is deductively valid. Therefore, the conclusion is as credible as the conjunction of its premises. In order for the conclusion to be taken seriously, the premises merely need to be credible enough to be taken seriously. There are just no grounds for your further requirement that the evidence for the first premise be “ironclad.”

 

[sw85]

It’s realy very simple. if the first two premises of The KCA are correct, the first uncaused cause cannot possible be personal.

Sure there is.

Whatever causes something does so because it has the power to cause it. If that thing had a beginning then it had to inherit its power from the thing that caused it.

If the first cause truly is the first cause, then whatever exists must exist in the first cause.

Personality exists.

Therefore, the first cause is personal.

 

[Tyrion]

I understand what you’re saying perfectly. You express yourself very clearly. However, what you are saying is still flatly wrong. The cosmological argument is deductively valid. Therefore, the conclusion is as credible as the conjunction of its premises. In order for the conclusion to be taken seriously, the premises merely need to be credible enough to be taken seriously. There are just no grounds for your further requirement that the evidence for the first premise be “ironclad.”

Sorry, I don’t buy your requirement, since it is too weak. “Credible enough”? Credible for whom? You can find some gullible people who would find it plausible that the Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale. For an issue of this importance, even the requirement of “beyond any reasonable doubt” would be insufficient. It needs a proof, which is beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now, I understand that you don’t like such stringent requirements, since you cannot fulfill them. But that is hardly my problem.

 

[Eleve]

Really? If someone demonstrated to you beyond all reasonable doubt that God exists, you would find that insufficient? What would be your grounds for holding out, at that point? Unreasonable doubts?

And what exactly would such an argument be “insufficient” for? Insufficient to in fact persuade you? OK, but as you yourself say, you can always find someone foolish enough to adopt a position on insufficient evidence, or in the face of strong evidence to the contrary; the strength of an argument has little to do with whether any particular person is persuaded. Insufficient to give you reason to believe in God? How could it possibly be that you have a) an argument for the existence of God b) against which there are no reasonable doubts and yet not have good reason for believing in God? Or is there some other standard that an argument should strive to meet, besides giving people reason to believe in things?

 

[Tyrion]

Really? If someone demonstrated to you beyond all reasonable doubt that God exists, you would find that insufficient?

Red herring. I am talking about a metaphysical principle, which is applied outside its applicable realm. And even if that metaphysical principle would be applicable and correct, it would not prove God’s existence. It would only point an unexplained and unexplainable “outside” force… but then again, “outside” is also inapplicable when one talks about the universe.

But if you wish to dig into the “proofs” deeper, here is a nice list for you. Proofs for God’s existence Have fun with them…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are invited to give your reasons. Giving bare conclusions on a philosophy forum doesn’t seem be impressing anyone.

Linus3nd

 

[Eleve]

Red herring. I am talking about a metaphysical principle, which is applied outside its applicable realm.

Wait, what? Surely if, as a matter of metaphysics, everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence, then the universe has a cause of its existence if it began to exist. I don’t see how you can say that the principle doesn’t apply, unless you think it’s false - and now you’ve taken some detour away from arguing that it’s false.

 

[Love4All]

The theistic starting point may be more " complicated, " but the atheist starting point is impossible. The theistic starting point does not involve infinite regress, God is the immediate cause of every act here and now occurring everywhere in the universe at this very moment. I move my finger as a secondary agent, God moves it as the Primary Agent. No infinite regress exists there. If God did not exist, neither would my finger, nor the reason for it to move.

So, you believe God does not exist and such ideas are all foolishness. We think God does exist and it is foolishness to say he doesn’t. There we are, an impass. So where do we go from here?

Actually, the theistic starting point is Utterly Simple. Thus God as the explanation for everything is far more parsimonious than “the Universe” because the Universe is very complex.

So complex, in fact, that it is plain nonsense to posit such a complex system as eternal and uncaused. This is the error I see in the atheist retort, “if God can be uncaused, then why not the Universe? That’s simpler.”

God makes more sense as First Cause because God has a Nature consistent with what we would expect of the First Cause, i.e., Simplicity, Aseity, etc. The Universe has none of the properties we would expect of the First Cause, and in fact, seems quite plainly to be a vast collection of effects.

 

[Love4All]

Tyrion

Consider the following:

Max Planck, Physicist

In his famous lecture Religion and Science (May 1937) Planck wrote: “Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter - the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” (Max Planck, Religion und Naturwissenschaft, Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, 1958, 27).

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Charles Darwin, Evolutionist

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.”

Isaac Newton

“God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them.”

I don’t think you need to say of Isaac Newton that his use of God for an explanation rendered him unable to pursue other explanations in the scientific realm.

Nice collection of quotes!

I’d like to add one along the same lines:

Paracelsus: “A little knowledge separates one from God. Great knowledge, brings him back.”

 

[tdgesq]

I do not attack science, or its methods. I am attacking the elevation of scientific observations to unquestionable, dogmatic metaphysical statements.

You don’t intend to attack science and its methods, yet that is exactly what you do when you treat inductive evidence for meta-physical claims differently than for physical claims. Consider this:

P(1): Every human being that began to exist, had a cause of its existence. Is this a fact, or just a “tentative” fact? If it’s one of your so-called “tentative” facts, then apparently it is possible that a human being began to exist with no cause. Is this a “tentative” fact, Tyrion?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Actually, the theistic starting point is Utterly Simple. Thus God as the explanation for everything is far more parsimonious than “the Universe” because the Universe is very complex.

So complex, in fact, that it is plain nonsense to posit such a complex system as eternal and uncaused. This is the error I see in the atheist retort, “if God can be uncaused, then why not the Universe? That’s simpler.”

God makes more sense as First Cause because God has a Nature consistent with what we would expect of the First Cause, i.e., Simplicity, Aseity, etc. The Universe has none of the properties we would expect of the First Cause, and in fact, seems quite plainly to be a vast collection of effects.

I was referring to the proofs that lead to the existence of God. I think they are difficult but that is just me. Linus2nd

 

[Love4All]

I was referring to the proofs that lead to the existence of God. I think they are difficult but that is just me. Linus2nd

According to the Book of Wisdom, all you have to do is open your eyes. Those who do not know God are called “vain,” because God’s existence, given the Universe as it is, is said to be fairly obvious.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

According to the Book of Wisdom, all you have to do is open your eyes. Those who do not know God are called “vain,” because God’s existence, given the Universe as it is, is said to be fairly obvious.

Well of course. You know that and I know that and lots of other people. But that is not enough for the people we are dealing with. They demand proofs. We give them proofs which require some deep thinking ( Thomas’ Five plus Ways and 20 or so others). These proofs are " complex " ( to me at least ). But to prove that atheism is correct is not only complex, it is impossible. If you think I am wrong, that is O.K., I’m a slow learner - everything is complex to me. Linus2nd