The cosmological argument revisted.

firedragon · May 11, 2021

Evangelicalhumanist said:
On the contrary, I do indeed.

But let me provide some insights:

First, the cosmological argument is generally proposed as (this is William Lane Craig's version):

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Craig (and others) then go on to identify that "cause" as God -- but it is certainty that that is a completely separate argument, and there are no good reasons to suppose that claim to be anything more than a conjecture.

In any case, and in my view much more importantly, is premise 1, whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. Many people suppose (as do I) that the universe (our universe, the one we know) begain with the Big Bang. We don't know, by the way, if there are other universes each beginning with their own Big Bang, or whether there was a universe before ours that ended in as Big Crunch and then bounced back in a Big Bang.

However, those are unimportant considerations. The only important consideration for our universe is our Big Bang, the event that was the beginning of our creation:

"Given the Grand Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang is not an event at all. An event takes place within a space-time context. However, the Big Bang has no space-time context; there is neither time prior to the Big Bang nor a space in which the Big Bang occurs. Hence, the Big Bang cannot be considered as a physical event occurring at a moment of time. As Hawking notes, the finite universe has no space-time boundaries and hence lacks singularity and a beginning (Hawking, Stephen W., 1988, A Brief History of Time, New York: Bantam). Time might be multi-dimensional or imaginary, in which case one asymptotically approaches a beginning singularity but never reaches it. And without a beginning the universe requires no cause. The best one can say is that the universe is finite with respect to the past, not that it was an event with a beginning (Rundle, Bede, 2004, Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing?, Oxford: Clarendon Press.)"

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The Kalam cosmological argument was adopted by the likes of Craig in their philosophical discussions or debates but it does not necessarily speak about God, and especially not the conception of God most have anyway. It is atheists who are very famous in this world who eternally keep bringing in God into this argument in order to refute God. But the Kalam cosmological argument has more depth than what you had presented. Definitely. I respect your post because you presented your understanding of this philosophical argument without just making an insult or a dismissal or a circumvention like I have been seeing all throughout by other atheists. But I must say that your representation of the argument is pretty poor because maybe you come from a God obsessive apologetic world by theists and that's your source of knowledge, yet I could be wrong.

Your description stems from the Aristotles idea of the prime mover, which is of course respected as Aristotle should be but is not the whole argument of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument you made was the conflation of ontology and cosmology. This problem comes from apologetics of the church alone, not philosophy though its a philosophical argument. Thus when discussing this one must try to get rid of the baggage of evangelism on both sides of the fence.

The Kalam argument goes a little beyond. Gazzalis "kidhum alaalam" meaning "eternality of the universe" which is the approach to ontology. You have moved from the cosmological argument to this without beginning where it should. The cosmological argument of Gazzali and later Ibn Sina, Al Kindi, etc argues the impossibility of infinite regression. This is the argument simply put. Creato ex nihilo is the latter stage, but first one has to speak out his own epistemology, then address the Cosmological argument, then move onto what ever this something came from is. One cannot just brush aside everything and immediately move onto a God argument like most unsophisticated people on the internet do for popularity. Atheists and theists both.

Thats why you have to define your epistemology prior to any of this. Hope you understand.

Ludi · May 11, 2021

Link said:
The traditional reply by atheist philosophers, is that you are applying the parts to the whole (all parts need a cause, so the whole thing needs a cause), in case of infinite regression. However, another way to think of it, is not in this way (parts to the whole) but through induction. If you see through induction, that infinite regression would still need a cause, then it's not applying parts to the whole.

As for the inductions, it's to see the pattern, will remain in a infinite from the finite case. And this is true. No matter how long the line (even of infinite size), they are all effects, and hence need a cause. It's through induction, and not saying, because the whole thing is effects, it requires a cause.

It's subtle, but if you see infinite regression requiring a first cause through induction, it's a solid and there is no refutation. If you see it through parts to the whole, it's a unproven reason, and unproven proof.

McBell · May 11, 2021

firedragon said:
I will just ignore the God rhetoric because it seems like just scripted apologetics.

Anyway I guessed you would respond to my question with something like that dismissing philosophy and philosophical discussion which are actually two things, but that's alright. So you think philosophy is a hypocritical creation of hypocrites (though you associated it with theism I will just dismiss it since it is not worthy of adopting for a discourse). How about philosophy of science? Do you think all kinds of philosophy are all hypocritical creations by hypocrites?

I used a religious tone because I figured you would be able to relate to it.
You did not disappoint.

That you are unable to get out of the religious tone is on you.
Or so I initially thought.
After thinking about it for a minute I realize that I did not make myself clear.

I think all philosophy is nothing more than people convincing themselves they are right.
And when nothing else can support their beliefs, they jump to philosophy because philosophy can let them justify any and every thing they want to believe.
They can flat out ignore the facts and go with what they want to be true.

Now some people claim that that is not what philosophy really actually is.
And perhaps they are right.
However, this is one of many threads right here in RF that strongly supports my thoughts on philosophy.

firedragon · May 11, 2021

Mestemia said:
I used a religious tone because I figured you would be able to relate to it.
You did not disappoint.

That you are unable to get out of the religious tone is on you.
Or so I initially thought.
After thinking about it for a minute I realize that I did not make myself clear.

I think all philosophy is nothing more than people convincing themselves they are right.
And when nothing else can support their beliefs, they jump to philosophy because philosophy can let them justify any and every thing they want to believe.
They can flat out ignore the facts and go with what they want to be true.

Now some people claim that that is not what philosophy really actually is.
And perhaps they are right.
However, this is one of many threads right here in RF that strongly supports my thoughts on philosophy.

Your habitual ad hominem is of course not engaged with.

So you think philosophy of science is hypocrisy?

firedragon · May 11, 2021

blü 2 said:
One very obvious one is that
if everything must have a cause,
then the First Cause must have a cause.And if God is said to be the First Cause, the question "What caused God?" must have an answer.

The argument is that infinite regression is an impossibility. How do you refute that in order to propagate what you said above?

Link · May 11, 2021

blü 2 said:
A third is that if in our universe time is a property or effect of something else ─ for instance energy, or fundamental particles, or both ─ then time only exists because energy (&c) exists and not vice versa. That is, energy/matter exists therefore time exists, and not vice versa, not energy/matter existing within time.

I see what you mean. The thing is to me it doesn't make sense to state that matter was in a timeless state ever, therefore, the first point of time/movement needs a cause.

ratiocinator · May 11, 2021

Link said:
The thing is to me it doesn't make sense to state that matter was in a timeless state ever, therefore, the first point of time/movement needs a cause.

Matter (apart from not actually being a well defined term at all) doesn't ever need to be in a timeless state but general relativity gives us a model of space-time that is one manifold, with time being a direction through it. The manifold as a whole (a four-dimensional object) would be timeless and unchanging. The idea of a cause (in any conventional sense) would be meaningless.

The whole idea of the need for a first cause is stuck in a nineteenth century, Newtonian idea of time.

rational experiences · May 11, 2021

ChristineM said:
Consider the cosmos as infinite. What first cause is required to cause infinity?

Infinite.

Does not age.

Cannot be counted.

Counting by gas burning. Light.
Proves it is not burning. Cannot change thus it is void.

viole · May 11, 2021

Link said:
Let's take time out of the equation.

You can't. Because how would you differentiate between causes and effects without time? Or worse, without an arrow of time, which is induced by already existing macroscopic systems?

For instance, why do you call it the first cause and not the last effect?

Ciao

- viole

ChristineM · May 11, 2021

rational experiences said:
Infinite

That's what i said

rational experiences said:
Does not age.

Is that so?

rational experiences said:
Cannot be counted.

Correct

rational experiences said:
Counting by gas burning. Light.

Wut?

rational experiences said:
Proves it is not burning.

Eggs are going cheep

rational experiences said:
Cannot change thus it is void.

Evangelicalhumanist · May 11, 2021

firedragon said:
The Kalam argument goes a little beyond. Gazzalis "kidhum alaalam" meaning "eternality of the universe" which is the approach to ontology. You have moved from the cosmological argument to this without beginning where it should. The cosmological argument of Gazzali and later Ibn Sina, Al Kindi, etc argues the impossibility of infinite regression. This is the argument simply put. Creato ex nihilo is the latter stage, but first one has to speak out his own epistemology, then address the Cosmological argument, then move onto what ever this something came from is. One cannot just brush aside everything and immediately move onto a God argument like most unsophisticated people on the internet do for popularity. Atheists and theists both.

Thats why you have to define your epistemology prior to any of this. Hope you understand.

I get what you are saying, and that is why I included my comments regarding the Grand Theory of Relativity. It puts a definitive end to regression. Nothing in our universe of space and time caused the Big Bang, but the Big Bang itself is the cause of everything in our universe. As Rundel and Bede point out, "The best one can say is that the universe is finite with respect to the past, not that it was an event with a beginning."

Consider also: if God is eternal, existing outside of time, then God's intention to create a universe must be effected without respect to time. For a timeless eternal being before creation, there can be no temporal gap between the time at which it does the willing and the time at which the thing willed actually happens. Which means that the universe is eternal, which would mean that it did not begin -- and we arrive at a Reductio ad Absurdum.

leroy · May 11, 2021

Mestemia said:
And again, this is merely a claim.
You have no way to confirm its validity.

I am not saying it is not true.
I am flat out admitting that "I Do Not Know'.
Neither do you.
You are merely presenting your belief as though it is a fact.

Because the alternatives are

1 that the universe came from nothing (literally nothing)

2 or that there is an infinite regress of cause and effects

Both are logically absurd therefore the only alternative is that there is a first “uncaused cause” this might be counterintuitive and hard to understand but at least it is not incoherent like the other 2 options

Link · May 11, 2021

viole said:
You can't. Because how would you differentiate between causes and effects without time? Or worse, without an arrow of time, which is induced by already existing macroscopic systems?

For instance, why do you call it the first cause and not the last effect?

Ciao

- viole

Causality with first and last, can be all at the same time, like the example I provided.

viole · May 11, 2021

Link said:
Causality with first and last, can be all at the same time, like the example I provided.

So, what is the cause and what the effect without an asymmetry usually provided by the arrow of time?
How can you say which is which? and why do we give them different names?

Ciao

- viole

ChristineM · May 11, 2021

leroy said:
Because the alternatives are

1 that the universe came from nothing (literally nothing)

2 or that there is an infinite regress of cause and effects

Both are logically absurd therefore the only alternative is that there is a first “uncaused cause” this might be counterintuitive and hard to understand but at least it is not incoherent like the other 2 options

Actually there are many alternatives. I know more than 30, none of them say god did it and only a couple say the universe came from nothing. The thing is that each and every hypothesis must have some evidence and/or be mathematically sound

viole · May 11, 2021

leroy said:
Because the alternatives are

1 that the universe came from nothing (literally nothing)

2 or that there is an infinite regress of cause and effects

Both are logically absurd therefore the only alternative is that there is a first “uncaused cause” this might be counterintuitive and hard to understand but at least it is not incoherent like the other 2 options

This is candidate to be the mother of all false dichotomies. And it is based on a deprecated Newtonian theory of time.

For instance, if we take relativity at face value, it is likely that time flow does not exist and "came from" is not applicable, and "regress" is not applicable. Same with things like "cause" and "effect".

For instance, a block Universe would be fully in agreement with observations while having no begin, no end, no change, no cause.

Ciao

- viole

ratiocinator · May 11, 2021

leroy said:
Because the alternatives are

1 that the universe came from nothing (literally nothing)

2 or that there is an infinite regress of cause and effects

Both are logically absurd...

firedragon · May 11, 2021

Evangelicalhumanist said:
I get what you are saying, and that is why I included my comments regarding the Grand Theory of Relativity. It puts a definitive end to regression. Nothing in our universe of space and time caused the Big Bang, but the Big Bang itself is the cause of everything in our universe. As Rundel and Bede point out, "The best one can say is that the universe is finite with respect to the past, not that it was an event with a beginning."

Consider also: if God is eternal, existing outside of time, then God's intention to create a universe must be effected without respect to time. For a timeless eternal being before creation, there can be no temporal gap between the time at which it does the willing and the time at which the thing willed actually happens. Which means that the universe is eternal, which would mean that it did not begin -- and we arrive at a Reductio ad Absurdum.

No. God and your conception of God should not enter this picture before you address the problem by itself. In order to address the problem you have to define your epistemology. You have now made a little bit of your epistemology open. But I am definitely not going to engage in that yet.

Anyway, I like the fact that you engage with philosophy. May I ask you to explain the "grand theory of relativity" that you mentioned above?

The Kalam cosmological argument does not negate temporal finitism by the way.

A second interest of mine is your statement "nothing caused the Big Bang". As a positive statement unlike Bede Rundles statement (which honestly I have not seen before) that you quoted which only ends with what best he can say, which the universe is finite, which the Kalam Cosmological Argument agrees with 100% as a philosophical argument. Thus, can you provide your philosophical reasoning for your positive statement "nothing caused the Big Bang"?

McBell · May 11, 2021

leroy said:
Because the alternatives are

1 that the universe came from nothing (literally nothing)

2 or that there is an infinite regress of cause and effects

Both are logically absurd therefore the only alternative is that there is a first “uncaused cause” this might be counterintuitive and hard to understand but at least it is not incoherent like the other 2 options

Look up false dichotomy and get back to me.

McBell · May 11, 2021

firedragon said:
Your habitual ad hominem is of course not engaged with.

Your habitually falsely accusing me and other of ad hominem only shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

firedragon said:
So you think philosophy of science is hypocrisy?

Your lack of reading comprehension is getting rather annoying.

Of course, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming it is a reading comprehension issue.

I eagerly await yet another false accusation of ad hominem.

The cosmological argument revisted.

Veteran Member

Member

Resident Sourpuss

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Veteran Member

Ontological Naturalist

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Ontological Naturalist

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Ontological Naturalist

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Veteran Member

Resident Sourpuss

Resident Sourpuss