• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Fatal Flaw of the Cosmological Argument

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
The cosmological argument for the existence of god has many variations, but all of them boil down to something like this (or very similar): "everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe had a cause." Yet even if every component (object, event, etc.) in the universe has a cause, this does not logically imply that the *set* consisting of every component in the universe (the universe itself) has a cause, anymore than the fact that every human has a mother would imply that the human race has a mother (in the same literal sense of the word). The point is that even if it is true that everything in the universe must have a cause, the universe itself need not have a cause. We cannot base our assumptions about the *set* of all things based on observations of the properties of individual things in the set, since even if the properties hold true for all elements in the set, they need not hold true for the set itself.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The cosmological argument for the existence of god has many variations, but all of them boil down to something like this (or very similar): "everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe had a cause." Yet even if every component (object, event, etc.) in the universe has a cause, this does not logically imply that the *set* consisting of every component in the universe (the universe itself) has a cause, anymore than the fact that every human has a mother would imply that the human race has a mother (in the same literal sense of the word). The point is that even if it is true that everything in the universe must have a cause, the universe itself need not have a cause. We cannot base our assumptions about the *set* of all things based on observations of the properties of individual things in the set, since even if the properties hold true for all elements in the set, they need not hold true for the set itself.
Everything that exists, has been caused to exist by the actions of that which existed before. So, ... what existed before the Big Bang?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Everything that exists, has been caused to exist by the actions of that which existed before. So, ... what existed before the Big Bang?

We've done this before but nope, there do seem to be uncaused events in nature.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Definitely unexplained events. However, cause and effect is just a popular way to view the universe.
Well, the decay of radioactive atoms is impossible to predict. One atom may decay almost in the next 5 minutes or it may hang around for a thousand years. There is absolutely nothing, so far we know, that is causes the decay process to take place when it does. So in our model of the universe there are some uncaused events.

One can assert that this is merely because we have not found the cause and will do so one day, but that is mere assertion, not backed by evidence. And meanwhile we do have a very successful theory that builds in this uncaused behaviour - Quantum Mechanics.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
We've done this before but nope, there do seem to be uncaused events in nature.
My point was that the "cosmological argument" is not really about "the cosmos" (the physical universe), it's about the nature of existence as we perceive and understand it. And about how what was 'before' caused what came 'after' which causes what comes 'next'. Which does then beg the question; what was before "before"? What came first?

To put it in terms of physics, the question would be where did the 'rules' that governed the way energy could and could not behave in the 'big bang' come from?
 
Last edited:

WalterTrull

Godfella
meanwhile we do have a very successful theory that builds in this uncaused behaviour - Quantum Mechanics.
I sure have read a lot of different opinions about what QM means. Some of them would say that everything is caused, just not totally predictable. I lean that direction.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
My point was that the "cosmological argument" is not really about "the cosmos" (the physical universe), it's about the nature of existence as we perceive and understand it. And about how what was 'before' caused what came 'after' which causes what comes 'next'. Which does then beg the question; what was before "before"? What came first?

To put it in terms of physics, the question would be where did the 'rules' that governed the way energy could and could not behave in the 'big bang' come from?
That, I quite agree, is something to which physics has no answer. ;)
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Everything that exists, has been caused to exist by the actions of that which existed before. So, ... what existed before the Big Bang?

And you base that assumption on your observations of all of the objects WITHIN the universe, and are trying to apply this property to the universe itself (the set of all such objects). That is the fallacy.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Everything that exists, has been caused to exist by the actions of that which existed before. So, ... what existed before the Big Bang?

Your statement is only true if there *are* things that existed before. In particular, it cannot be true for the start of time, which may have been at the Big Bang.
 
Top