Stress test the argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthias123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matthias123

Guest
I may eventually be in a debate on the existence of God, and I would really appreciate it if you guys tested this argument.

See if I made any errors on my part and expose its weaknesses so it can be improved.
I will start by first presenting the ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument’. I will explain it first—then I will present a link to where you can view the logical point form version. This version was created by Dr. William Lane Craig
Everything that begins to exit has a cause for its existence. The universe began to exist. We can know this for certain for two reasons. The first is the impossibility of an actual infinite. An actual infinite cannot exist – it is mathematically impossible. In truth infinity is nothing but a concept.
A universe that had no beginning and no end would employ an infinite temporal regress. An infinite temporal regress would be an actual infinite – therefore an infinite temporal regress is impossible. The universe must have a beginning and an end.
Now, permit me to play devil’s advocate for a moment. Lets pretend that an actual infinity does exist, and the universe has always existed. There would still have to be a reason for the universe to exist.
There are those that argue that it is human nature to always search for a reason to everything and that the universe could be just there (we are still playing devils advocate). Now I will rebuke such belief now in saying is that the reason we look for reason in everything is because the universe itself is reasonable/logical, therefore everything in the universe must be reasonable logical, because everything in the universe is the universe. We look for reason in everything because there is reason in everything.
Now everything that has a reason has to be given this reason. Reason does not happen by itself. Thus there must be a reasoner that gives this reason to existence. This men call God.
Therefore, even if an actual infinity could exist (which it can’t) the existence of a creator can still be certain.
That will conclude my playing of devils advocate and will lead me into the second reason for the argument for a contingent universe.
The second reason is the nature thermodynamic properties of the universe. The universe only has enough potential energy to stay in motion for a finite period of time. (Second Law of Thermodynamics) Therefore if the universe has no beginning, not only would the universe not be able to function, but it would not be able to expand. It is a scientific fact that our universe is expanding.
Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence.
Now what caused this existence? According to M-Theory, for which I am supporter, the universe may have been caused by the collision of branes in multidimensional space. I find this an intriguing hypothesis. (There is still not enough proof to warrant a full fledge belief though. I consider this a very good theory – nothing else.)
Now M-Theory also states that at the smallest level one dimensional bisects of two dimensional objects vibrate in 11th dimensional space – these are known as strings. However even these strings are subject to the argument above, because they exist within time. This is obvious because anything outside of time is changeless because a temporal regression of changes cannot exist– strings change by vibrating – therefore they are in time. (Also the theory states that strings are still bounded by time, I am just giving another explanation)
So either the universe or strings have a cause for their existence.
So what would this cause be?
Well the universe or strings were either brought into existence by a mechanically operating set of necessaries and sufficient conditions, or a free agent.
It is not possible for the universe or strings to be created by a mechanically operating set of free necessaries.
Therefore the universe or strings must have been created by a free agent.
This free agent will be henceforth known as ‘creator’.
The creator must be uncaused because an infinite temporal regression cannot exist.
The creator is beginingless because whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist.
The creator is changeless because an infinite temporal regression of changes cannot exist.
The creator is immaterial because anything that is material involves changes on atomic and molecular levels, and we already know the creator is changeless.
The creator is timeless because like I states earlier, anything that is changeless is outside of time because an infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist.
The creator is spaceless because whatever is immaterial and timeless does not take up space.
The creator is obviously enormously powerful due to the creation of the universe or strings out of nothing.
The creator is enormously intelligent due to the fine tuning involved in all that he created.
“Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the
universe (or strings) exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,”
changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and
enormously powerful and intelligent.”
Note: Much of the above is paraphrased.
 
by Dr. William Lane Craig
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of
    its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of
an actual infinite:
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events
is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the
formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition:
2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is
a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past
events cannot be actually infinite.
2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of
the universe.
2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic
properties of the universe.
  1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
    existence.
  1. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then
    an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists,
    who sans creation is beginningless, changeless,
    immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously
    powerful and intelligent.
4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a
personal Creator:
4.11 The universe was brought into being either
by a mechanically operating set of necessary and
sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into
being by a mechanically operating set of necessary
and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being
by a personal, free agent.
4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation
is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial,
timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and
intelligent:
4.21 The Creator is uncaused.
4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot
exist. (2.13, 2.23)
4.22 The Creator is beginningless.
4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to
exist. (1)
4.23 The Creator is changeless.
4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes
cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
4.24 The Creator is immaterial.
4.241 Whatever is material involves change on
the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator
is changeless. (4.23)
4.25 The Creator is timeless.
4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does
not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
4.26 The Creator is spaceless.
4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot
be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and
timeless (4.24, 4.25)
4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.
4.271 He brought the universe into being out of
nothing. (3)
4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.
4.281 The initial conditions of the universe
involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points
to intelligent design.
  1. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the
    universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,”
    changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and
    enormously powerful and intelligent.
 
The first four objections I would raise (that Craig tends to ignore, simply because his opponents do, for their own reasons) come from Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, 2nd Division, Book 2, Chapter 3, Section 5):
  1. That everything that is contingent must have a cause - is a principle without significance except by sense-experience. How do we know that everything contingent was indeed caused?
  2. That there are no actual infinities: How do we establish this? It may seem absurd, but what is the logical mistake, then?
  3. Simply because we cannot reason that there is another possible solution to the philosophical problem (if the first two objections can be fairly addressed), by which I mean the problem of the termination of the series of causes, does not mean that there is no solution. Maybe we only reason that God started it because our reason is limited.
  4. The very framework of the proof requires that we, at least principally, consider everything altogether. But this would imply that our minds would be at least principally complete, and lacking nothing. And so we would be un-caused causes. (Kant typically takes this fourth point in a different direction, referring to the synthetic a priori, in terms of a transcendental knowledge, limiting any truly rational expression of everything, in any sense; I take it differently.)
After these four, depending on answers, there are more modern objections that can be made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top