The Cosmological Argument

[Dan4reason]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I would say using a word like God to label the cause of the universe is not so much an error as something that will create a lot of misunderstandings in the future.

 

[Meow Mix]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

Yes. The second premise is unjustified. There is nothing to suggest that the universe began to exist. The problem here is that there are a great deal of nuances in cosmology that are both difficult to comprehend and especially resistant to coherent explanation to laypersons.

This leads to several problems: sure enough, most laypersons and even some physicists misunderstand the metaphysics behind the issue; and they believe that the Big Bang Event represents the beginning of the universe's existence. Usually, though, this misunderstanding is exacerbated by statements by big-name cosmologists like Hawking that "time began to exist" in the Big Bang Event.

This is essentially "dumbing it down" for a layperson audience -- which is fine for any popularizer of science -- but it causes fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of the Big Bang Event. Time does cease to have meaning in the familiar context if you go back far enough during the BBE; but this is only because we lack a quantum theory of gravity, and furthermore because our current models end up with finite geodesics as you trace the systemic histories "backwards."

The fact of the matter is, though, that we can't make physical assertions at this time prior to the first Planck time during the BBE. The BBE was certainly the beginning of the current state of the universe; but there is no justification whatsoever for the assertion that it was the beginning of its ontological existence.

For someone to make this cosmological argument, they would have to face the daunting task of justifying the second proposition. I wish them luck in this endeavor, considering that by doing so they would have surpassed the last 50 years of cosmological understanding by doing so.

 

[Tonymai]

You can not reason God into existence. God is existential, without beginning or ending. To God all is an infinite now. In addition, there is some part of existence may be without beginning and ending. Or co-eternal with God.

 

[Meow Mix]

You can not reason God into existence. God is existential, without beginning or ending. To God all is an infinite now.

The aim of the cosmological argument isn't to reason God "into" existence but rather to bring reason to the theist's side of the table. Beliefs without justification are by definition irrational, so it seems prudent to offer some justification for the belief that a god or gods exist at all. Unfortunately, this particular argument doesn't work out that way.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So God also had to have had a cause for its existence

 

[Meow Mix]

So God also had to have had a cause for its existence

Only if God began to exist; which theists don't generally believe.

That's why premise (2) is so unacceptable: the only reason the argument could possibly work is if it's demonstrated the universe began to exist. There are no such indications that it has.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Only if God began to exist; which theists don't generally believe.

That's why premise (2) is so unacceptable: the only reason the argument could possibly work is if it's demonstrated the universe began to exist. There are no such indications that it has.

If God doesn't need a beginning, why does the universe?

 

[Dan4reason]

If God doesn't need a beginning, why does the universe?

Is the universe timeless like God is?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For someone to make this cosmological argument, they would have to face the daunting task of justifying the second proposition. I wish them luck in this endeavor, considering that by doing so they would have surpassed the last 50 years of cosmological understanding by doing so.

Thanks - that's helpful, or at least intriguing. Which testable cosmologies evidence a universe without a beginning?

 

[PolyHedral]

Is the universe timeless like God is?

Yes. That is, time is a component of the universe.

 

[Dunemeister]

I think the best versions of this argument put it in terms of cause rather than ontological existence. That argument eventually lands up with an unmoved mover, which is fine if you're arguing for some kind of philosopher's god, but that's nowhere near where full-blooded theists want to go, and certainly far short of what monotheism wants, much less what Christian trinitarian covenantal creational monotheism wants. At the very best, this argument shows that theistic belief is reasonable; it doesn't show, much less on pain of irrationality or cussidness, that theistic belief is more rational than alternatives.

 

[Dan4reason]

I think the best versions of this argument put it in terms of cause rather than ontological existence. That argument eventually lands up with an unmoved mover, which is fine if you're arguing for some kind of philosopher's god, but that's nowhere near where full-blooded theists want to go, and certainly far short of what monotheism wants, much less what Christian trinitarian covenantal creational monotheism wants. At the very best, this argument shows that theistic belief is reasonable; it doesn't show, much less on pain of irrationality or cussidness, that theistic belief is more rational than alternatives.

The cosmological argument does take people very far, from confusion to a belief in a personal deity.

So does the cosmological argument make sense to you? Many smart people are convinced by it and many are not. In fact some Christians do not find this argument convincing, but are Christians for other reasons.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Originally Posted by Dan4reason
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

A few little minor adjustments required, but i mostly agree, what i know is:

The universe did not have a first creation, this is just one cycle of continuant construction and de-construction from infinity, and everything has 2 causes, the material and the efficient, the material being what we are living in today, the efficient is OM (GOD), therefore God becomes a cause of a infinite effect, therefore GOD no it does not require a cause itself.
so to give you a more simple answer..yes God is the efficient cause of the universe.

 

[Dunemeister]

The cosmological argument does take people very far, from confusion to a belief in a personal deity.

So does the cosmological argument make sense to you? Many smart people are convinced by it and many are not. In fact some Christians do not find this argument convincing, but are Christians for other reasons.

There are those who claim that their faith rests on such arguments. All I can say is that if that's the case, their faith is based on a very loose and unstable foundation. What if the caution of Meow Mix is borne out by physicists, who somehow manage to refine their mathematical models to the point that they can definitively determine that the universe -- or at least "stuff" -- is, for lack of a better word, eternal? What happens then to the person whose faith rests on the basis of an argument for the ontological dependency of matter on God?

 

[9Westy9]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

1) Fine by me. Of course why can't matter have always existed.
2) I guess it's referring to the big bang. We still don't know if this beginning is ex materia or ex nihilo. As we've only ever observed ex materia I'd go with that.
3) Fine
4) Why does the cause have to be God? What characteristics of God make it so that it (he/ she) can be the only cause?

 

[Dan4reason]

A few little minor adjustments required, but i mostly agree, what i know is:

The universe did not have a first creation, this is just one cycle of continuant construction and de-construction from infinity, and everything has 2 causes, the material and the efficient, the material being what we are living in today, the efficient is OM (GOD), therefore God becomes a cause of a infinite effect, therefore GOD no it does not require a cause itself.
so to give you a more simple answer..yes God is the efficient cause of the universe.

Thanks for the input. I will be posting some definitions.

A thing's material cause is the material of which it consists. (For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.)

A thing's efficient or moving cause[4] is "the primary source of the change or rest." An efficient cause of x can be present even if x is never actually produced and so should not be confused with a sufficient cause.[5] (Aristotle argues that, for a table, this would be the art of table-making, which is the principle guiding its creation.)[2]

Lets say we have Nebula. Gravity begins pulling the gas in to one region and forms a star. So the material cause is the gas, and the efficient cause is gravity. So the efficient cause does not have to be an intelligence.

Also how do you know that efficient causes don't need causes themselves? You had an interesting response however I disagree with the philosophy.

 

[Dan4reason]

There are those who claim that their faith rests on such arguments. All I can say is that if that's the case, their faith is based on a very loose and unstable foundation. What if the caution of Meow Mix is borne out by physicists, who somehow manage to refine their mathematical models to the point that they can definitively determine that the universe -- or at least "stuff" -- is, for lack of a better word, eternal? What happens then to the person whose faith rests on the basis of an argument for the ontological dependency of matter on God?

Definitely you need more to your faith than just the cosmological argument, but do you consider this argument valid, and why or why not?

On the side, I see the cosmological arguments as interesting but unnecessary speculation on the part of Christians, and it should certainly not be the basis of faith.

 

[Willamena]

A thing's material cause is the material of which it consists. (For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.)

"Material cause" by this definition is tautological, then, the cause and effect being the same.

Edit: The distinction of "material cause" made by Aristotle differs from what I believe the tact is here in that Aristotle was not proposing the cause of a thing, but the explanation of a thing. The material is being used descriptively as part of its explanation, and as such a "material cause" is not defined by an effect it might produce (except perhaps figurative lightbulbs).

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

definitely, no errors