Questions about the Cosmological Argument

[belorg]

Are you a different person after you have created something?

Yes, but, as I said, not relevant to this thread.

There is no reason why creatures need be identical with their Creator.

No, but that’s not what I am claiming.

Have you changed after you have changed something?

Yes, but, as I said, not relevant to this thread.

There is no obvious reason for “always”.

If in Him we move etc…, then either we have always moved etc in Him, or we started moving in Him at some instant. But if the latter is true, then there was an instant at which nothing was in Him, followed by an instant at which something was in Him. That is a change.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Because, say if we could somehow observe such an event occurring inside a self contained mini universe, we would see P1 occur first, then cause P2 which would move backwards in time to cause P1.

Except that we wouldn’t. Let’s assume that P2 stops at the point it reaches P1 and P1 stops once it hits P2 (to cause it to move backwards in time).

We would see P1 and P2 both moving at the same time up to a point where they would collide, and both of them would stop.

 

[tdgesq]

Precisely, which is why the b-theorist has to say (1) is false.

Not precisely. In fact, quite imprecise. (1) is a conditional statement that can be recast: “If anything has a beginning then it has a cause.” (1) does not declare that anything actually does have a beginning. The b-theorist has no reason to disagree with (1) on the basis that X does not have a beginning. Certainly the b-theorist could disagree with (2) “The universe has a beginning,” but that is not the premise you are questioning.

First, let me clarify, I used a phrase sloppily. If you think something is more probable than not, then you’ll believe it. But, this standard says not all of your beliefs are knowledge, which seems obvious. It places the rationality threshold higher than ‘more probable than not.’

It is up to you what standard you will accept for mere belief. I read you question to ask whether it is rational to suspend belief in a situation where one finds the content of the belief to be more probably true than not. Under those circumstances, I’m not sure belief can be suspended.

Second, there’s no reason to accept (a). It seems self-evident that the stronger evidence we have for a position, the greater probability it is that the position is true.

Then why stop at “extremely powerful evidence”? In order to be secure from error, make it only deductive syllogisms with symbolic premises. As I said, arbitrary.

With my clarification in hand, you would still believe things which are more probable than not, but you wouldn’t take yourself to know them simply by virtue of that.

You weren’t discussing knowledge. Your question was about belief. So while I agree with your statement, it doesn’t make “extremely powerful evidence” a rational standard for mere belief. It looks more like a sophistic burden shifting exercise to put your opponent at a disadvantage.

Since the universe is alleged to have began with time, none of our experience lends support to the universe having a cause because it began.

I’m not sure I understanding the argument. If you are alleging that we’ve never experienced the beginning of a universe then I agree. We have experienced many other types of beginnings in the universe and have found that they all have a cause. Maybe you are claiming that motion logically can’t begin as measured by time. I would have to see the full explanation.

On the other hand, if b-theorists are correct then motion is an illusion, as well as cause and effect. It also doesn’t comport with Big Bang cosmology. I hope you are going to apply your same standard for belief to the b-theory of time.

 

[Perplexity]

Not precisely. In fact, quite imprecise. (1) is a conditional statement that can be recast: “If anything has a beginning then it has a cause.” (1) does not declare that anything actually does have a beginning. The b-theorist has no reason to disagree with (1) on the basis that X does not have a beginning. Certainly the b-theorist could disagree with (2) “The universe has a beginning,” but that is not the premise you are questioning.

These are fair points, I concede. I’m not really sure how one might argue (1) is false.

It is up to you what standard you will accept for mere belief. I read you question to ask whether it is rational to suspend belief in a situation where one finds the content of the belief to be more probably true than not. Under those circumstances, I’m not sure belief can be suspended.

Ah, yeah, I’d agree with that. But, in those circumstances I’d question whether (1) is more probable than not.

Then why stop at “extremely powerful evidence”? In order to be secure from error, make it only deductive syllogisms with symbolic premises. As I said, arbitrary.

Because certainty isn’t a requirement for knowledge. I understand arbitrary to mean without any reason, and if that’s what you’re working with, I need only provide some reason.

You weren’t discussing knowledge. Your question was about belief. So while I agree with your statement, it doesn’t make “extremely powerful evidence” a rational standard for mere belief. It looks more like a sophistic burden shifting exercise to put your opponent at a disadvantage.

I think my clarification covers this, unless you think I’m being dishonest?

I’m not sure I understanding the argument. If you are alleging that we’ve never experienced the beginning of a universe then I agree. We have experienced many other types of beginnings in the universe and have found that they all have a cause. Maybe you are claiming that motion logically can’t begin as measured by time. I would have to see the full explanation.

No, I mean we’ve never experienced anything begin to exist when time began to exist. (1) asks us to believe that things which began to exist when time began to exist have a cause, but of course, none of our experience supports that. We’ve only experienced things that begin to exist in time.

On the other hand, if b-theorists are correct then motion is an illusion, as well as cause and effect. It also doesn’t comport with Big Bang cosmology. I hope you are going to apply your same standard for belief to the b-theory of time.

I think Alexander Pruss has adequately refuted this understanding of b-theory.

 

[razredge]

Except that we wouldn’t. Let’s assume that P2 stops at the point it reaches P1 and P1 stops once it hits P2 (to cause it to move backwards in time).

We would see P1 and P2 both moving at the same time up to a point where they would collide, and both of them would stop.

Hmm, maybe - but I might add that all this is pure speculation as there is not much evidence that time travel to the past is actually possible and even if it was possible whether retrocausality like this can actually occur.

 

[Bookcat]

“Life is not a simple product of laws and the randomness of matter, but within everything and at the same time above everything, there is a personal will, there is a Spirit who in Jesus has revealed himself as Love.”

–Pope Benedict XVI (Encyclical on Hope)

“We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But again the question has to be asked: is this still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success - inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: “I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth” -I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason.”

– Pope Benedict XVI (12 Sept 2006 Homily in Regensburg)

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Hmm, maybe - but I might add that all this is pure speculation as there is not much evidence that time travel to the past is actually possible and even if it was possible whether retrocausality like this can actually occur.

You are correct about that. As with most of these ideas, pure speculation.

I suppose I’m attracted to ideas like this (very similar to Hawking’s ideas about the start of the universe), in large part because of a philosophical love for Spinoza and his grand philosophical intuitions: that ultimate reality is built upon rational laws, that the laws could not have been any other way, and that ultimate reality is self-caused (or self-explanatory; necessary; self-justified, etc.) and eternal.

 

[tdgesq]

These are fair points, I concede. I’m not really sure how one might argue (1) is false.

I think it could be done if we could show that there is no possible world in which a “beginning” could exist. I wouldn’t know how to begin going about doing it though.

Ah, yeah, I’d agree with that. But, in those circumstances I’d question whether (1) is more probable than not.

Sure, my point is that I think the only real standard for belief is - well - do I (you) believe it. I agree that our beliefs don’t make it knowledge.

Because certainty isn’t a requirement for knowledge. I understand arbitrary to mean without any reason, and if that’s what you’re working with, I need only provide some reason.

You are right. Certainty isn’t a requirement for knowledge, and much less a requirement for belief. There are different degrees of knowledge.

I think my clarification covers this, unless you think I’m being dishonest?

No, I will take you at your word. I’m just a little bit cynical when it comes to standards that appear to shift burdens.

No, I mean we’ve never experienced anything begin to exist when time began to exist. (1) asks us to believe that things which began to exist when time began to exist have a cause, but of course, none of our experience supports that. We’ve only experienced things that begin to exist in time.

Ok. That is what I suspected. My question is: what have we experienced at any point in our existence that would support a b-theory of time?

I think Alexander Pruss has adequately refuted this understanding of b-theory.

I don’t find this to be a refutation, just a declaration that b-theorists should not be required to give an explanation for change. My argument isn’t that b-theorists must hold to a static theory of time. I more interested in another point though.

Would you agree with me that b-theory does not prove that the universe has perpetual existence? I think it is consistent with that view, but I do not see how it constitutes proof.

 

[JDaniel]

This simple argument for God’s existence, sometimes called the Kalam argument, goes something like:

1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
   …various arguments…
   X. This cause is God.

Here go my questions:

1. Do you find this argument convincing?

Yes.

1. If you do find this argument convincing, how do you answer the objection that things may be self-caused?

Such an objection is nothing more than an absurd and unimaginative hypothetical.

1. What about the objection that something that has a beginning may not be caused?

Another absurd, unimaginative hypothetical.

1. Finally, what arguments do you use to go from (3) to (X), and how do you eliminate alternative causes, such as some eternal pre-universe, etc?

One goes from 3. to X by a simple naming convention. Of course, it did help that God revealed Himself to our ancestors, where He was called by several names - all of which, by the way, refer to the same exigency: God. Oh, and by the way, God is not the cause of Himself. He exists through Himself. Quite a different statement, one that is apropos of an Infinite Creator of the universe, of all souls past, present, and future, and of all the angels.

One eliminates an alternative of a “pre-universe, etc.” by a careful examination of what it means to be “infinite” and a careful look at the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem delineating a boundary to past-time.

God bless,
jd

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Such an objection is nothing more than an absurd and unimaginative hypothetical…

I see these objections, but I am not convinced about them. Please, explain why you think self-causation and lack of causation are absurd. I understand that the latter would cause serious problems for science, and is very distasteful to me (and many others), but can we discount it outright?

And as for self-causation, it does not seem to be such a bad idea, to me. Maybe because of my ignorance. Please explain why it’s “absurd”. I’m not too worried about the “unimaginative” and “hypothetical” parts.

 

[razredge]

I suppose I’m attracted to ideas like this (very similar to Hawking’s ideas about the start of the universe), in large part because of a philosophical love for Spinoza and his grand philosophical intuitions: that ultimate reality is built upon rational laws, that the laws could not have been any other way, and that ultimate reality is self-caused (or self-explanatory; necessary; self-justified, etc.) and eternal.

Yes, I also like thinking about time and space - and the rational laws that all reality is built on seem to suggest an intelligent designer to me.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Yes, I also like thinking about time and space - and the rational laws that all reality is built on seem to suggest an intelligent designer to me.

The very thing you point out here is why I am an agnostic. I still require more evidence before becoming convinced enough to call myself a theist or pantheist, but I think it is likely that such evidence may be out there, and I may not have found it yet.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you a different person after you have created something?

You are considered to be the same person in a law court and everywhere else!

There is no reason why creatures need be identical with their Creator.

No, but that’s not what I am claiming.

It is an implication.

Have you changed after you have changed something?

Yes, but, as I said, not relevant to this thread.

It demonstrates that God need not change when He creates something; otherwise He would be inferior to us in that respect!

There is no obvious reason for “always”.

If in Him we move etc…, then either we have always moved etc in Him, or we started moving in Him at some instant. But if the latter is true, then there was an instant at which nothing was in Him, followed by an instant at which something was in Him. That is a change.

“in” is an analogical term because we have no term to describe the precise relationship between the Creator and what is created. Yet it is reasonable to believe that the Source of everything that exists is not conditioned or changed by that which has been created. Necessity is not altered by contingency!

 

[Biblepoe]

To the OP:

This simple argument for God’s existence, sometimes called the Kalam argument, goes something like:

1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
   …various arguments…
   X. This cause is God.

Here go my questions:

1. Do you find this argument convincing?
2. If not, why not?

I don’t find it convincing for the same reason why I don’t consider the following argument that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light convincing:

1 An object that is pushed forward moves faster than it was moving before.
2 A can of spam is an object.
3 Therefore, if a can of spam that is moving as fast as the speed of light is pushed, it will move faster than the speed of light, proving that Einstein was wrong about objects not being able to go faster than light speed.

It (as well as Kalam) is taking inductive, intuitive, and seemingly valid pair of observations and assuming the universal validity and linearly extrapolating to places where they fail.

Here is a video in which someone explains this very well. Even though I had this objection in mind beforehand, I liked his example enough to borrow it.

 

[razredge]

The very thing you point out here is why I am an agnostic. I still require more evidence before becoming convinced enough to call myself a theist or pantheist, but I think it is likely that such evidence may be out there, and I may not have found it yet.

Yes, I quite like the views of Paul Davies on this and his conception of a God who came up with the beautifully elegant laws of nature that account for all the stunning complexity and diversity in the cosmos as well as it’s fundamental rationality.

And I completely agree with him that this conception of God is far more worthy of the term than some kind of Divine Tinkerer who goes around intervening in the universe and fixing up his creation - which unfortunately is what many believers believe in (such as the ID proponents and creationists).

premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={CD6D82AC-9A89-41D7-8D9E-F6712260177F}

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/04/stephen-hawking-big-bang-gap

I am also somewhat agnostic in the sense that I don’t have personal knowledge of God (he doesn’t seem to talk to me) and my faith is mainly based on the other evidence (and perhaps also because I find most atheists don’t really accept the implications of their own world view - self-consistency is important to me and theism allows you that )

 

[belorg]

You are considered to be the same person in a law court and everywhere else!

I am considered ‘the same person’ after I’ve lost an arm too. But I guess you son’t consider losing an arm a change.

For the record, I am sure that ‘creating without changing’ is an incoherent concept, but for the argument I have presented here, I can accept its coherence for the sake of the argument. So, it is irrelevant.

It is an implication.

No, it is not implied by anything I said.

It demonstrates that God need not change when He creates something; otherwise He would be inferior to us in that respect!

It does not demonstrate that at all, but for the record, I am sure that ‘creating without changing’ is an incoherent concept, but for the argument I have presented here, I can accept its coherence for the sake of the argument. So, it is irrelevant

“in” is an analogical term because we have no term to describe the precise relationship between the Creator and what is created. Yet it is reasonable to believe that the Source of everything that exists is not conditioned or changed by that which has been created. Necessity is not altered by contingency!

For the record, I am sure that ‘creating without changing’ is an incoherent concept, but for the argument I have presented here, I can accept its coherence for the sake of the argument. So, it is irrelevant

 

[tonyrey]

I am considered ‘the same person’ after I’ve lost an arm too. But I guess you son’t consider losing an arm a change.

It doesn’t change you, your identity or your moral responsibility for what you have done, are doing or will do.

For the record, I am sure that ‘creating without changing’ is an incoherent concept, but for the argument I have presented here, I can accept its coherence for the sake of the argument. So, it is irrelevant.

No, it is not implied by anything I said.

It does not demonstrate that at all, but for the record, I am sure that ‘creating without changing’ is an incoherent concept, but for the argument I have presented here, I can accept its coherence for the sake of the argument. So, it is irrelevant

For the record, I am sure that ‘creating without changing’ is an incoherent concept, but for the argument I have presented here, I can accept its coherence for the sake of the argument. So, it is irrelevant.

1. You assume “A timeless person cannot create anything that begins.”
2. You believe “An unchanging being cannot go from ‘not creating’ to ‘creating’ because that would be a change”.
3. Even a person in this world does not change as a result of changes he or she makes.
4. It does not follow that “the only way for an unchanging being to create is by always being creating”.
5. There is no obvious reason to believe “the effect of this eternal creation is also eternal”.
6. Nor does it follow that “if the universe really did begin, this eternal unchanging being cannot possibly be the creator of the universe”.

 

[afungusamongus]

Hi. If we define God to be this first cause, does that just not raise the question what caused God? And put us back to square one? Thank you.

You cannot invoke a infinite regress of causes. You need the first cause and that some of have claimed is God.

What the OP was missing is the part where Aquinas tells us a little about what this first cause must be like.

First of all if this cause existed before the universe existed it had to be not bound to the physical universe ie immaterial.

If it existed before time existed then it had to be timeless.

It had to be immensely knowledgeable and powerful to have created the universe.

And lo and behold just like that you got your self something resembling a God. Now you need some more work to get to the Christian God, but at the very least the argument leads you away from atheism.

 

[tonyrey]

You cannot invoke a infinite regress of causes. You need the first cause and that some of have claimed is God.

What the OP was missing is the part where Aquinas tells us a little about what this first cause must be like.

First of all if this cause existed before the universe existed it had to be not bound to the physical universe ie immaterial.

If it existed before time existed then it had to be timeless.

It had to be immensely knowledgeable and powerful to have created the universe.

And lo and behold just like that you got your self something resembling a God. Now you need some more work to get to the Christian God, but at the very least the argument leads you away from atheism.

Welcome to the forum! Your post is closer to a pearl than a fungus…

 

[belorg]

It doesn’t change you, your identity or your moral responsibility for what you have done, are doing or will do.

Moral responsibility hasn’t got anything to do with it.

1. You assume “A timeless person cannot create anything that begins.”

No, I don’t assume this, I argue for it.

1. You believe “An unchanging being cannot go from ‘not creating’ to ‘creating’ because that would be a change”.

That’s not just what I believe, it’s standard Thomistic doctrine. Thomas of Aqiuno would agree with me on this.

1. Even a person in this world does not change as a result of changes he or she makes.

That is demonstrably false, and irrelavant as well.

1. It does not follow that “the only way for an unchanging being to create is by always being creating”.

Ask Thomas of Aquino. According to him, God’s act of creation is eternal. I don’t always agree with Thomas, but this seems an inevitable consequence of Thomism.

1. There is no obvious reason to believe “the effect of this eternal creation is also eternal”.

Assuming timelesness, there is.

1. Nor does it follow that “if the universe really did begin, this eternal unchanging being cannot possibly be the creator of the universe”.

It does. If it doesn’t, just explain, not just assert, how an eternal being can be the cause of a beginning universe.