Cosmological Argument

[Linusthe2nd]

This is inaccurate. That God simply exists, (i.e. that his essence is identical to his existence) is not a premise of the cosmological argument, rather it is the conclusion. The entire intent of these arguments is to demonstrate that the Universe cannot simply exist, that it does not contain within itself sufficient reason for its existence, that it is not purely actual etc. It may or may not succeed in proving that but it is not simply assumed.

The cosmological argument is not put forward as some kind of “explanatory hypothesis” in the first place, the standard argument has always been defended as a purely metaphysical demonstration of the impossibility of a per accidens ordered infinite series. If it succeeds in that then whether or not one knows all the other details of this entity is irrelevant.

Because the intent of the cosmological argument is not to, by itself, deduce all the attributes of the Christian God. Those must be determined by further arguments; the Cosmological argument is necessary but not sufficient for proving the Christian conception of God

Very good. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think you need to listen to the podcasts on his site, none of it is based on human intuition, everything is fully backed up by top astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and planetary scientists.

reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s4

Aquinas’ Five Ways are more solid and escape the objections of the Kalam argument. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve got a Bachelor’s in Mathematics, so I know all about infinity. In fact, I remember those proofs in the video you linked (I’m also subbed to numberphile).

The problem with the cosmological argument, in my estimation, is that it relies far too heavily on intuition to describe what the “Uncaused Cause” is. Especially since at that scale of things, we’ve found that intuition is completely useless.

Not the Cosmological arguments of Aquinas. See S.C.G. , Book 1, ch 13 : dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#13

and S.T., Part 1, ques 2, ans 3 : newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If the universe is not from everlasting, it needs a cause; but if the universe has no beginning, then it does not need a cause for its beginning. Similarly, if God has no beginning, than He doesn’t need a cause either.

But the universe had a beginning, (first and second laws of thermodynamics); but, unlike the universe, God did not have a beginning. Therefore, God did not have a cause.

Therefore, we have the choice between “In the beginning, God” created the universe or “In the beginning, nothing” did. But if nothing was in the beginning, then nothing would still be. On the other hand, if something exists now, then something has always existed; and the Bible calls this Being that has always existed “God.”

On the contrary, if the universe is eternal it still needs a cause for its existence, movement, and guidance. That is why St. Thomas’ argument is stronger, it assumes an eternal universe. Thomas shows that even such a universe must have a First Cause. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I explained why in post 23

No, it didn’t explain anything. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, I explained why a personal cause leads to the opposite conclusion. Not just that Craig’s argument for a personal acause is wrong. Any argument for a personal cause, combined with the KCA; leads to the opposite conclusion.

You made assertions. These do not amount to explanations. Linus2nd

 

[tdgesq]

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”.

Here’s the problem: that wasn’t your argument against P(1) or P(2). It’s okay to switch ponies now if that’s what you want to do, but I think it’s important to point out that’s what you are doing.

Your rejection of P(1) “Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence,” was as follows:

*]This is a metaphysical assumption, which is akin to the “no one has ever seen a black swan, therefore black swans do not exist” . Such unsubstantiated assumptions are dime a dozen.

See. No mention of the supposed meaningless of this proposition. If you now assert that it’s meaningless, you will need to give a demonstration; because none of the rhetorical questions you posted above treat it at all.

And your argument against P(2) “The universe began to exist”:

*]This is a physical assumption, which has not been substantiated. The Big Bang theory never stated that it was the beginning of the Universe, it merely stated that it was the beginning of the current form of the universe. Our physics cannot say anything about the internal state of the singularity.

You certainly made arguments that this is a physical assumption, and that Big Bang cosmology does not conclusively demonstrate the truth of the premise. You didn’t argue that it’s a meaningless proposition. None of the questions you asked above are relevant to this proposition. “How did the universe begin to exist?” P(2) doesn’t answer how it became to exist, only that it did begin to exist. “[W]hat is outside of the universe?” P(2) doesn’t state anything about what may or may not exist outside of the universe. “[W]hat caused the universe to start to exist?” Nothing in P(2) informs us about what caused the universe to begin to exist.

By the way, (3) “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence,” necessarily follows from the form of P(1) & P(2). Notice that it doesn’t state anything about what exists outside of the universe or what caused the universe to exist. So none of your rhetorical questions apply here either.

If you are prepared to admit (3) “the universe has a cause of its existence,” then we can move on to your other questions. It’s fine to conveniently ignore the point by point refutation I gave to your arguments to (1), (2) & (3) here, but you will need to admit that’s what you’ve done before we can explore whether anything more can be known about the cause of the universe.

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.

I’ve never argued anything about God - yet. There are answers to these questions. My goal was to get you to admit that you don’t have any answer to the question of “what is the cause of the beginning of the universe?” You concede that you don’t in the most emphatic terms (“Indeed, I do not!”). Thank you.

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.

God is the conclusion to the Kalaam argument, and every other Cosmological Argument for the existence of God I’ve encountered. Theists don’t begin with God, although apparently for some non-theists it makes sense to start with the universe, despite the fact that it has a cause of it’s beginning.

Concede (1), (2) & (3) and I will answer your questions.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There are only 3 problems with this proposition.

1. 
   *]This is a metaphysical assumption, which is akin to the “no one has ever seen a black swan, therefore black swans do not exist” . Such unsubstantiated assumptions are dime a dozen.
   *]This is a physical assumption, which has not been substantiated. The Big Bang theory never stated that it was the beginning of the Universe, it merely stated that it was the beginning of the current form of the universe. Our physics cannot say anything about the internal state of the singularity.
   *]Since the two prerequisites are unsubstantiated assumptions, the corollary is unsubstantiated as well. There is only one more problem, the fallacy of composition. Since the universe is not an object, but a set of objects, it is a fallacy to try to generalize from the particular to the whole.
   
   Apart from these “minor” errors, the cosmological “argument” is airtight. But why worry? There are hundreds of proofs of God’s existence… enumerated here: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

1. 
   Your objections are based on unnamed assumptions. Personal prejudice? Linus2nd

 

[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.

Fatuous sophism. Falsify truth by errecting road blocks of unconnected objections. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

hicetnunc

No, I am not objecting that if God were eternal he would have no choice other than to create. My objection is that if God wills to create IOW as soon as God had made the choice to create, he cannot then decide not to create.
If He could, what would the be the meanign of God’s will. It would mean God changes His mind, but a chnage entails temporality.

So who is suggestion that God changes his mind? By the way, what does " IOW " mean?
If we are going to discuss serious topics we should avoid " tweet " language. Stick to standard English. Linus2nd

 

[tdgesq]

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

Congratulations. The worst argument to be produced yet by either theist or non-theist against Kalam.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s a nice way of putting the argument. Thanks!

Thomas certainly can’t mean to say that the notion of an infinite period of time is incoherent, since he believes no demonstration can show that the world began to exist - it’s instead an article of faith.

I also don’t see how Cantor’s diagonal argument is a problem for the notion of a universe
without a beginning (but I agree that it’s not a serious problem for the cosmological argument, since Kalaam can rely on science (rather than metaphysical arguments) that shows that the universe began to exist, and the really interesting cosmological arguments aren’t about the beginning of the universe at all).

I don’t think anyone making a cosmological argument has to claim that the metaphysical premises are certain. The argument doesn’t need to show that God exists and we couldn’t possibly be mistaken; it just needs to show that God exists.

So? Do you think that God’s free will requires that he can change his mind?

If you are interested in a link to " Questiones Disputatae de ''vertatae " follow here : dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer.htm Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
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) But you did not define what you meant by " a-temporal. " Then I will disgard that term and say that God is eternal as I said in my quote.

Quote:
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/-] eternal God existed as the First Cause.

Which is not what I was disputing here. What in the world are you disputing then?

Quote:
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?

**I read your posts. They amount to unfounded assumptions. Here is the upshot.
Atheists will not accept any argument which tends to demonstrate the existence of the spiritual soul of man, an immaterial intellect, an eternal, uncaused, unchangeable God that is absolutely other than and absolutely transcendent to his creation. At the same time they demand Christians accept their fatuous arguments as undeniable truths or be laughed out of the room.

But Christians are under no obligations to prove anything to atheists. For the simple reason that the most certain and best grounded proof for the truth of Christian faith is the histiorical unfolding of God’s Divine Revelation which gives Christian faith an unquestioned certitude because it is the Word of God, Who cannot lie. The proof of the validity of this historical Revelation is that it speaks and will always speak to the heart of man. And it is upon this Truth which Believing men and women hang their unshaken hope.

What does it matter that atheists won’t accept it? It doesn’t matter at all, except to the atheist. But our faith does not depend on any philosophical argument. None of those above, nor any that can be imagined. Philosophy is used by us only to reinforce our well grounded faith and to offer to the world such reasons that we can - with the understanding that all that we believe is ultimately based on faith and is not dependent on reason in the scientific or philosophical sense.

We do wish the world would follow but we cannot force unwilling minds. And in the final analysis faith really is an unmerited gift of grace. It cannot be had by argument.**

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Congratulations. The worst argument to be produced yet by either theist or non-theist against Kalam.

I guess it keeps coming up because Craig is so popular and is sooooo busy! I don’t say he has nothing to say, I do say that the Kalam argument is the world’s worst. Linus2nd

 

[Tyrion]

Here’s the problem: that wasn’t your argument against P(1) or P(2). It’s okay to switch ponies now if that’s what you want to do, but I think it’s important to point out that’s what you are doing.

I am not switching “horses”, I simply chose to illuminate another problematic side of the same problem.

See. No mention of the supposed meaningless of this proposition. If you now assert that it’s meaningless, you will need to give a demonstration; because none of the rhetorical questions you posted above treat it at all.

The proposition is: “everything that began to exist, must have an external cause for its existence”. Which is a generalization from physical observation. I did not say that it wrong, I said that it is unsupported. It may even sound plausible, but nothing more. And since it is the basis of the whole argument, and since it is just an unsupported assumption, the whole argument is just an unsupported assumption. That is all there is to it.

Here is another example of “uncaused” events: “every free decision of ours, as long as we have free will”. If our decisions are “caused” (mind you: not influenced! but caused!), then they are not “free”. If our decisions are free, then they start a new causal chain, and as such they are not caused. .

You certainly made arguments that this is a physical assumption, and that Big Bang cosmology does not conclusively demonstrate the truth of the premise. You didn’t argue that it’s a meaningless proposition. None of the questions you asked above are relevant to this proposition. “How did the universe begin to exist?” P(2) doesn’t answer how it became to exist, only that it did begin to exist. “[W]hat is outside of the universe?” P(2) doesn’t state anything about what may or may not exist outside of the universe. “[W]hat caused the universe to start to exist?” Nothing in P(2) informs us about what caused the universe to begin to exist.

Exactly, because the proposition is meaningless. And since the Big Bang is not considered to be the “beginning” of the universe. Also because the principle of conservation of matter / energy / momentum / etc… specifically denies the “creation” from ex-nihilo.

By the way, (3) “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence,” necessarily follows from the form of P(1) & P(2). Notice that it doesn’t state anything about what exists outside of the universe or what caused the universe to exist. So none of your rhetorical questions apply here either.

I agree (again ). Just like

P1) Every elephant can play the violin.
P2) Jumbo is an elephant.
Conclusion: Therefore Jumbo can play the violin.

Do not confuse a logically valid syllogism with a logically sound one. To make the proposition to be a logically sound one, you need to demonstrate that both P1) and P2) are true, and they are not merely assumptions.

My goal was to get you to admit that you don’t have any answer to the question of “what is the cause of the beginning of the universe?” You concede that you don’t in the most emphatic terms (“Indeed, I do not!”). Thank you.

You are welcome. I am unable to answer meaningless question, and I freely admit this fault of mine.

God is the conclusion to the Kalaam argument, and every other Cosmological Argument for the existence of God I’ve encountered.

Actually, that is not precise. Some unknown “cause” would be the result. if any of these arguments succeeded.

 

[belorg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
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) But you did not define what you meant by " a-temporal. " Then I will disgard that term and say that God is eternal as I said in my quote.

Quote:
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/-] eternal God existed as the First Cause.

Which is not what I was disputing here. What in the world are you disputing then?

Quote:
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?

I read your posts. They amount to unfounded assumptions. Here is the upshot.
Atheists will not accept any argument which tends to demonstrate the existence of the spiritual soul of man, an immaterial intellect, an eternal, uncaused, unchangeable God that is absolutely other than and absolutely transcendent to his creation. At the same time they demand Christians accept their fatuous arguments as undeniable truths or be laughed out of the room.

But Christians are under no obligations to prove anything to atheists. For the simple reason that the most certain and best grounded proof for the truth of Christian faith is the histiorical unfolding of God’s Divine Revelation which gives Christian faith an unquestioned certitude because it is the Word of God, Who cannot lie. The proof of the validity of this historical Revelation is that it speaks and will always speak to the heart of man. And it is upon this Truth which Believing men and women hang their unshaken hope.

What does it matter that atheists won’t accept it? It doesn’t matter at all, except to the atheist. But our faith does not depend on any philosophical argument. None of those above, nor any that can be imagined. Philosophy is used by us only to reinforce our well grounded faith and to offer to the world such reasons that we can - with the understanding that all that we believe is ultimately based on faith and is not dependent on reason in the scientific or philosophical sense.

We do wish the world would follow but we cannot force unwilling minds. And in the final analysis faith really is an unmerited gift of grace. It cannot be had by argument.

Linus2nd

Of course you are under no obligation to prove anything to atheists, but when they claim they have proof they should be able to come up with something better than the Kalam Cosmological Argument

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course you are under no obligation to prove anything to atheists, but when they claim they have proof they should be able to come up with something better than the Kalam Cosmological Argument

You have noticed that neither I nor some others above defend the Kalam argument because we do not regard it as a good argument. Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

You have noticed that neither I nor some others above defend the Kalam argument because we do not regard it as a good argument. Linus2nd

Since in this thread I have been trying to show why the KCA does not work, I wonder why you keep replying to me, because apparently we are finally argeeing on something.

 

[tdgesq]

The proposition is: “everything that began to exist, must have an external cause for its existence”.

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.

Which is a generalization from physical observation. I did not say that it wrong, I said that it is unsupported.

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.

It may even sound plausible, but nothing more. And since it is the basis of the whole argument, and since it is just an unsupported assumption, the whole argument is just an unsupported assumption.

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.

That is all there is to it.

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.

I mean, this is why I like Craig. Apparently the name “William Lane Craig” in connection with the words “argument for the existence of God” makes otherwise rational people assert that things can begin to exist without a cause. If it’s Craig, then I will deny even the laws of causality!

Here is another example of “uncaused” events: “every free decision of ours, as long as we have free will”. If our decisions are “caused” (mind you: not influenced! but caused!), then they are not “free”. If our decisions are free, then they start a new causal chain, and as such they are not caused.

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.

And since the Big Bang is not considered to be the “beginning” of the universe. Also because the principle of conservation of matter / energy / momentum / etc… specifically denies the “creation” from ex-nihilo.

Craig doesn’t argue that Big Bang Cosmology proves the beginning of the universe. He asserts that it is consistent with the the claim that the universe began to exist. From a scientific perspective we can’t know what happens at the singularity at t=0. We can know some things 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (1.0×10^-43) seconds later - the Era of one Planck time.

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.

So now the argument is that the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated by something Craig argues later, eh; specifically creation ex nihilo. These laws are limited by their very formulation to processes in an isolated thermodynamic system. There is a reason why scientists don’t go around asserting that the law of conservation of energy proves that the universe didn’t have a beginning.

Do not confuse a logically valid syllogism with a logically sound one. To make the proposition to be a logically sound one, you need to demonstrate that both P1) and P2) are true, and they are not merely assumptions.

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.

You are welcome. I am unable to answer meaningless question, and I freely admit this fault of mine.

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?

Actually, that is not precise. Some unknown “cause” would be the result. if any of these arguments succeeded.

It can’t be disputed that cosmological arguments for the existence of God conclude that God exists, including Kalam. I didn’t assert that you would agree with the conclusion or otherwise fail to have good reasons to dispute the conclusion. The conclusion (not the starting point) of those arguments is that God exists, and that isn’t a matter of opinion. This is starting to get silly.

 

[tdgesq]

You have noticed that neither I nor some others above defend the Kalam argument because we do not regard it as a good argument. Linus2nd

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