Cosmological Argument

[Charlemagne_II]

Tyrion

**If one wishes to avoid the infinite regress, there must be a “starting point”. For theists this starting point is God, unexplained and unexplainable. For the atheists it is the universe. **

For theists and atheists, it is the Big Bang, not the universe, not the universe, that is the starting point of causality. The theist asserts God as the Creator of the Big Bang, which includes the principle of causality. What does the atheist assert? He asserts nothing because he knows nothing. He can imagine many things, but he cannot scientifically prove any of them. The one thing he refuses to assert is God, which, given Occam’s Razor, is the simplest possible explanation.

 

[ngill09]

Tyrion

**If one wishes to avoid the infinite regress, there must be a “starting point”. For theists this starting point is God, unexplained and unexplainable. For the atheists it is the universe. **

For theists and atheists, it is the Big Bang, not the universe, not the universe, that is the starting point of causality. The theist asserts God as the Creator of the Big Bang, which includes the principle of causality. What does the atheist assert? He asserts nothing because he knows nothing. He can imagine many things, but he cannot scientifically prove any of them. The one thing he refuses to assert is God, which, given Occam’s Razor, is the simplest possible explanation.

Actually, notwithstanding some other facts or reason, the universe itself is much more parsimonious than positing a universe-creating God.

 

[tdgesq]

Actually, notwithstanding some other facts or reason, the universe itself is much more parsimonious than positing a universe-creating God.

I might agree with you if I knew what explanation was being advanced. Is the universe itself the explanation for it’s own existence? I don’t know what is being asserted.

 

[ProVobis]

My answer to “Why is it that only the beginning of the universe doesn’t have a cause” is similar to his answer to “Why is it that only God doesn’t have a cause?”

Simply put, I think it inappropriate to use the term “God” to describe the uncaused cause of our universe, since the properties of such a thing would be completely beyond our understanding and intuition. Moreover, I think it’s inappropriate to use a term used in reference to the mythical beings conceived by the minds of primitive men in reference to some inconceivable thing.

I think this is what Carl Sagan was saying in one of the Cosmos chapters. (I believe it was Chapter 10.)

It was rumored, however, that he ended up believing in God before he died.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve got a Bachelor’s in Mathematics, so I know all about infinity.

You probably can think in more than three-dimensions too.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi, Esquire.

Let’s be more precise: When it comes to the external reality, then there is always some degree of uncertainty. We must always be aware that there can be an error, either in the observation, or the interpretation. This, of course, does not invalidate the inductive method, it merely cautions us to be aware of the possible problems, or exceptions. As such it is a practical “warning”. On the other hand, in the formal, axiomatic systems, we know with absolute certainty that propositions from the axioms are valid (by definition). The Pythagoras theorem will never be invalidated.

The objection simply warns us not to elevate the “practically” certain method to the rank of “absolutely” certain, metaphysical principles. Yes, we can practically say that physical causation is universal. A billiard ball will not start rolling, unless it is pushed by the cue-stick. But from this, practical observation it does not follow that there cannot be an “uncaused” event. As a matter of fact, the “emergence” of virtual particles look like a good example of uncaused events.

Without the laws of logic there can be no reasoning. If “A is A” would be denied, then there would be no “true” or “false” propositions.

The reason is simple. The universe is not an object, it is abstract set. It is a collection of physical objects. The fallacy of composition is applicable here. Again precision is important. The fallacy of composition does not say that it is incorrect to generalize from the particular to the general, it merely states that such generalization cannot be “automatic”, it needs to be established. (Example: valid generalization: “the floor is composed from white tiles, therefore the floor is itself white”. Incorrect generalization: “the floor is composed of square tiles, therefore the floor is itself square”).

As opposed to “inefficient” causes? Sorry, this thomistic concept is also rejected. Causation is experienced as a physical interaction. True it is not an absolute rule, theoretically there could be exceptions, but they need to be demonstrated. People who believe in the “paranormal” are welcome to demonstrate such non-physical causation using their “mental powers”.

I am not interested in the multiverse concept. My stance is simple. When it comes to the universe, concepts like “temporally before” or “spatially outside” or “externally caused” are nonsensical, undefined and undefinable. The universe is all there is, and one cannot speak meaningfully of “creation”.

I explained about the problem of composition above. And, indeed to speak of the “origin” of the universe is an exercise in futility. The universe is the ontological foundation of existence, and to speak of “outside” or “before”, etc… exactly as unacceptable as speaking of an object that resides to the north from the North Pole.

Sometimes people state that the universe “does not explain itself”. Apart from the horrible linguistic form (the universe is not a teacher to explain anything ), this objection is unacceptable. If one wishes to avoid the infinite regress, there must be a “starting point”. For theists this starting point is God, unexplained and unexplainable. For the atheists it is the universe. The theistic starting point is more “complicated”. That would be no problem, if only it had “explanatory power”. But it explains nothing. As I said before: “an unknowable being using unimaginable means made the universe somehow happen”. That is not an explanation.

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?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill
**
Actually, notwithstanding some other facts or reason, the universe itself is much more parsimonious than positing a universe-creating God. **

Aren’t you being a parsimonious reductionist here?

Carl Sagan said:

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

So what is your extraordinary scientific evidence that the universe is uncreated?

The evidence that it was created is in the Big Bang.

 

[belorg]

I think it is better not to use the Kalem argument to prove your position since it is not highly thought of by many of us here. ST. Thomas provides many proofs for the necessity of God’s existence as a Personal God who is absolutely other than and transcendent to His effects. It is an absolute necessity that He is eternal ( a-temporal, as you would say ).

I fully agree that if God exists, He is necessarily eternal and a-temporal (which is not the same, BTW)

It is only your opinion that this involves a contradiction. But that is because you will not admit that there can be any causality that does not exist in time and limited by time.
So the contradiction exists only in your mind not in reality. For there would be no time bound universe ( the effects you see and measure ) unless this a-temporal God existed as the First Cause.

Which is not what I was disputing here.

We are at an impass. You have proven nothing and we cannot force an unwilling mind to accept the necessity of such a God’s existence. So where do we go from here?

Your remark here is absolutely irrelevant. So where do we go from here? You could start by actually reading my posts and by making some relevant remarks.
How can we discuss something when we talk past each other?

 

[belorg]

Well put Linus.

But completely irrelevant to any point I have been making here.

 

[Tyrion]

The claim “our starting point is the universe” certainly can’t ever be an answer to the question of how there came to be a universe. And since that’s the question, it doesn’t appear you have an answer.

Indeed, I do not! Just like I do not have an answer to the question: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?”. To ask “how did the universe begin to exist?” or “what is outside of the universe?”, or “what caused the universe to start to exist?” are all nonsensical questions. These questions are all composed of valid words, strung together, yet they are exactly as meaningless as interrogating the “color of the taste of sweetness”.

Try to apply the same questions to God. Where did God come from? What caused God to exist? Any theist will reject these questions as nonsensical. God “simply” exists, needs no explanation. Does God “explain” itself? No, but God “needs” no explanation - say the theists. Well, the atheists also say that the universe needs no explanation.

As I said in my previous post to you. positing God explains nothing. An actual explanation would increase our understanding, it would give us insight into the process. The “goddidit” is the antithesis of an “explanation”, it asserts that explanation is impossible. So “adding” God to the problem is even “worse”. It explains nothing, and it closes the door to the investigation.

The principle of conservation is another metaphysical principle and very well supported, too. And it explicitly rejects the “ex nihilo” creation. Yet, the theists assert that it only pertains to the state of affairs within the universe, it is not applicable to the universe. So, some metaphysical principles are only applicable within the universe, while others are applicable to the universe? This kind of attitude is not even internally consistent.

Actually, notwithstanding some other facts or reason, the universe itself is much more parsimonious than positing a universe-creating God.

That is very true, but mere parsimony is not a deciding factor for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis. It is a good reason to select a null-hypothesis, to be sure. Now, if there are two competing hypotheses and both of them explain the hypothesis equally well, then one is justified to tentatively accept the more parsimonious one. But this acceptance should always be tentative, and one should always be ready to discard the “simpler” hypothesis in favor of the more complicated one, if the more complicated explains the phenomenon better.

Of course, the “goddidit” is never an "explanation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tyrion

**Try to apply the same questions to God. Where did God come from? What caused God to exist? Any theist will reject these questions as nonsensical. **

They are not nonsensical. They are mistakes of reasoning, because they posit that whatever applies to the universe must also apply to God. An atheist who hasn’t thought this through is not nonsensical … just shallow.

God “simply” exists, needs no explanation. Does God “explain” itself? No, but God “needs” no explanation - say the theists. Well, the atheists also say that the universe needs no explanation.

This is more invalid reasoning for the reason that atheists now recognize they can’t fall back on the old position that the universe is infinite and eternal, two traits theists often attribute to God. The Big Bang has done away with that “out”. So the atheist still needs an explanation for why the universe came into being. If not by God, what would be another reason that makes more sense than God? (You can’t just fall on the presumption that
God cannot exist. That is an unprovable atheist maxim.)
**
As I said in my previous post to you. positing God explains nothing.**

Well, actually it does if there is a God.

An actual explanation would increase our understanding, it would give us insight into the process.

An actual explanation of the process of Creation may be too profound for the human mind. Certainly science is baffled by the origin of the Big Bang.

The “goddidit” is the antithesis of an “explanation”, it asserts that explanation is impossible.

Well, here the implication is that if you can’t explain something in scientific terms, it isn’t possible. This is certainly not the view of the cosmologists who believe in the Big Bang even though they cannot possibly explain the origin of the Big Bang in scientific terms.

So “adding” God to the problem is even “worse”. It explains nothing, and it closes the door to the investigation.

Not really. Einstein didn’t think so.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.” Albert Einstein

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Albert Einstein

Einstein clearly believed in some kind of superior intelligence behind the origin of the universe. Reference that that intelligent being was not forbidden by Einstein, since he was not so narrow minded as to suppose that the protocols of science must be imposed on the protocols of philosophy and religion.

“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” Albert Einstein

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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.

 

[ngill09]

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.

Actually, as you have pointed out on numerous occasions, Newton’s belief that “Goddidit” was the answer to how the solar system worked probably prevented him from pursuing the actual mathematical explanation. Of course, perturbation theory was a good bit ahead of his time, but the guy invented calculus, he might have been able to figure it out if he hadn’t assumed it was impossible.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

** Of course, perturbation theory was a good bit ahead of his time, but the guy invented calculus, he might have been able to figure it out if he hadn’t assumed it was impossible. **

Actually, Newton figured out many things, and certainly did not explain all these things he figured out as “goddidits.”

Whether Newton or Leibnitz invented calculus is now a dead issue. Al Gore invented it!

 

[Whit_Dupree]

*As I said in my previous post to you. positing God explains nothing.
Well, actually it does if there is a God.
*

This debate is interesting to follow, good fencing.

Consider the hypothetical “It does if there is – in fact --God.”

Aquinas reportedly received a vision of Heaven that stunned him into silence, because words were no longer adequate as explanation. This apparently is taken to be knowledge by revelation. Knowledge obtained in this way seems to be similar to empirical knowledge but stronger in the “felt” conclusion of certainty.

If God, then would an atheist turn theistic? Perhaps one has to first believe that God could exist, then move to the position that God probably exists, and finally to believe that God does exist for such a revelation to be received. And if received by you, would that then be sufficient confirmation to warrant your personal acceptance?

A few years ago I received an email from a Christian friend with a video of a Bible lecture in a classroom; the presenter asked for a show of hands of how many believed in God, were agnostic, and atheistic. BLAM, a loud thunder bolt hits the room knocking the furniture around and darkening the lights. When the lights came on again: some students were on their faces praying out loud thanking God. The remainder bodies were scattered about dead, including the presenter. I email back, “Which ones got zapped and which are praying? The nonbelievers that are still living and are now in repentance, with the dead taken to heaven; or, the nonbelievers struck dead and the believers praying?”

If the hound of heaven never gives up on wanting all humankind including atheists to love him/her/it/Nog, then Nog would be waiting to embrace you, too. Yet, I say that from a theistic perspective and not to offend you in any way. You have a sharp mind; so please keep the debate going by writing and publishing a book on atheism. I’ll buy and read it. Thanks for your comments.

 

[hicetnunc]

But completely irrelevant to any point I have been making here.

Oh, I am not so sure it is all that irrelevant belorg. Linus is asking a fair point: where to find the common gound to advance the conversation. In the short time I have been on Catholic Answers Forums, these debates about the existence of God via cosmological arguments are endless and circular. Even in this thread here we find people positing the same, tired cliches about these arguments, often with little or no reference to anything others have written or said before and more often than not with little more than parodies and straw men. I am sure you can see that browsing through the threads. There is clearly no appetite for the discovery of truth among a lot of people on both sides of the argument, although I find athesist less likely to critically examine the limitations of their own reasoning than thesists.

Hence, I think Linus’ point was quite appropriate and held out an invitation for a different kind of discussion for a brief moment. But it seems to have been lost now unfortunately.

I did enjoy our brief exchange, and I thank you for that and wish you all the best in your own quest.

 

[belorg]

Oh, I am not so sure it is all that irrelevant belorg. Linus is asking a fair point: where to find the common gound to advance the conversation. In the short time I have been on Catholic Answers Forums, these debates about the existence of God via cosmological arguments are endless and circular. Even in this thread here we find people positing the same, tired cliches about these arguments, often with little or no reference to anything others have written or said before and more often than not with little more than parodies and straw men. I am sure you can see that browsing through the threads. There is clearly no appetite for the discovery of truth among a lot of people on both sides of the argument, although I find athesist less likely to critically examine the limitations of their own reasoning than thesists.

Hence, I think Linus’ point was quite appropriate and held out an invitation for a different kind of discussion for a brief moment.

I don’t know what you think of this, but I don’t see “we cannot force an unwilling mind to accept the necessity of such a God’s existence” as an invitation for a different kind of discussion. If anything it seems like a refusal to discuss these matters in some depth.

I did enjoy our brief exchange, and I thank you for that and wish you all the best in your own quest.

I enjyoed our brief exchange too, but I must say had hoped it would be less brief

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I suggest you not even try, since you cannot succeed. The two premises (theist and atheist) are almost identical.

The atheist says that the Universe SIMPLY EXISTS. It needs no explanation, since it is the ontological foundation on which all explanations depend. It did not “come” into existence, it just exists.

The theist says that God SIMPLY EXISTS. It does not need explanation, since it is the ontological foundation on which all explanations depend. It did not “come” into existence, it just exists.

Now, this shows that the theist really “pushes” the unexplainable one step further, thereby violating the principle of parsimony (commonly called as Occam’s razor). This would not be a problem, if positing God would have any explanatory value! But it has none. It gives us no explanation about the universe at all. HOW it was brought into existence. When stripping all the “fluff” away, the residue is simply this:

**An unknowable being, employing unimaginable means, using some inexplicable magic made it somehow happen. **

And this is as far from any “explanation” as it can be. Ask any theist to tell you this: “how did God create the universe ‘ex nihilo’? What was the method he used?” The answer probably will be: “it is a mystery”. It cannot be known. It must be accepted on faith… or something similar. So what does God “add” to the problem? Nothing. None of the so-called philosophical “proofs” for God can accomplish what they wish to accomplish. They all commit some kind of fallacy. And even if some would succeed, it would only lead to faceless “first cause”, never to the christian God with all its attributes.

So, why bother?

Purely fatuous. Not even a good try. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

These arguments are very complex, you need to review these links completely:

Dr. William Lane Craig:

reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s4

Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D.:

magisreasonfaith.org/podcast.html

ArguingWithAtheists:

ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Intelligent_Design.htm

This should keep you busy for a few weeks

And we should add the Summa Theologica, Part 1, ques 2, ans 3 : newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

And the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, chp 13 : dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#13

But we know " _ " has all the answers. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The Cosmological Argument (at least as presented by William Lane Craig) fails because it is utterly dependent on human intuition for its premises about the nature of the origin of the universe. It’s dealing with a scale of things that completely baffles human intuition. Moreover, it depends on the phenomenon of Creation Ex Nihilo, which has never been observed and is arguably incoherent.

Thank you, the Kalem argument should be ignored by all serious philosophers. A Thomist can spot the errors at first glance. Craig hangs on to it for reasons unknown and must be questioned. Linus2nd