The Fatal Flaw of the Cosmological Argument

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it's more like if every single component in a mechanism is red, viewed from a distance, the whole should appear red.

Copy paste this image in MS Paint or alike.

Use the "select" function and draw a rectangle in the dark gray top.

Press ctrl+c

Press ctrl+v

Take the pasted rectangle and drag it unto the lighter gray bottom

Be amazed that the light gray and the dark gray, are actually the exact same kind of gray.

Yet, they don't appear the same kind of gray.






Sorry, couldn't help it...

 

[Komori]

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.

Are atheists really so inept that the only philosopher they can understand is Bertrand Russell? God, analytic philosophy is veritable trash, and Russell's rebuttal of the Cosmological Argument is probably one of the worst, having been picked apart by so many others.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are atheists really so inept that the only philosopher they can understand is Bertrand Russell? God, analytic philosophy is veritable trash, and Russell's rebuttal of the Cosmological Argument is probably one of the worst, having been picked apart by so many others.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I have seen quite a few refutations of the argument. The problem is that theists misuse the Kalam. They try to use it as a proof of god, which it is not. But since you claimed that Russell's argument fails tell us how and why please. Or are you merely giving an opinion that you cannot support?

 

[Komori]

I have seen quite a few refutations of the argument. The problem is that theists misuse the Kalam. They try to use it as a proof of god, which it is not. But since you claimed that Russell's argument fails tell us how and why please. Or are you merely giving an opinion that you cannot support?

I literally provided a link which gives perspectives from multiple philosophers.

 

[Polymath257]

Are atheists really so inept that the only philosopher they can understand is Bertrand Russell? God, analytic philosophy is veritable trash, and Russell's rebuttal of the Cosmological Argument is probably one of the worst, having been picked apart by so many others.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I guess I could reply that the CA is itself trash and has been picked apart by multiple people as demonstrated by your link,

There are deep problems in the argument, from the nature of causality, to whether an infinite regress is possible, to whether a uncaused cause could legitimately be described as a deity, to whether there could be more than one such uncaused cause.

it isn't *just* whether it is a mistake to say that the universe is contingent or not. It's also whether that is even a meaningful distinction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I literally provided a link which gives perspectives from multiple philosophers.

Let's hear your take on it please. I really do not care for philosophers too much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess I could reply that the CA is itself trash and has been picked apart by multiple people as demonstrated by your link,

There are deep problems in the argument, from the nature of causality, to whether an infinite regress is possible, to whether a uncaused cause could legitimately be described as a deity, to whether there could be more than one such uncaused cause.

it isn't *just* whether it is a mistake to say that the universe is contingent or not. It's also whether that is even a meaningful distinction.

I agree, in my opinion it fails by defining the "uncaused cause" as deity. That is an unjustified assumption. And then once they have their poorly constructed deity they tend to pretend that it is the deity of their choice. It amounts to a special pleading fallacy, that the universe has to have a cause but their deity does not. Why not get rid of the middle man and just take the universe itself as the "uncause cause"?

EDIT: We don't know yet is always a superior answer when we do not actually know.

 

[wellwisher]

One way to resolve this debate is to understand that reason is 2-D thinking. Reason is based on cause and affect, which is analogous to plane that has been labeled with an (x,y) axis system; cause and affect, onto which we draw rational drawings.

There is also 3-D thinking, which has three axis (x,y,z). This is more like a cube than a plane. Science is based on 2-D systems; age of reason, but it also tries to approximate 3-D, with theories like quantum theory, and math tools like statistics, but neither are fully based on 3-D logic.

The 2-D system is more left brain, while the 3-D system is right brain. The 2-D system is about differential logic. While the 3-D system is more about integral logic. Science is more left brain, whereas religion and instinct is more right brained. God is a 3-D concept that goes beyond 2-D logic.

As an analogy, picture a 3-D concept, as 3-D ball. It has height, depth and width. This 3-D ball can be approximated with a large number of circles, all with a common center, each at a different angle. Each circle is a 2-D rational plane, with the sum of all these planes, able to approximate the 3-D logic ball. All our opinions; logic planes, on a subject, allows us as a team, to approximate 3-D concepts. We may feel the 3-D unity with an intuition that is hard to put into words.

Say I hit this 3-D ball with a bat. The ball will deform under the stresses of being struck. This can be modeled using continuum mechanics, which is 3-D math used in engineering. In terms of all the 2-D planes, that are used to approximate the 3-D ball, what is a logical deformation in 3-D, will cause the 2-D planes to move out of their logic planes; bending. This structural change will appear illogical; defy cause and affect, as had been defined by each plane.

Statistics is about rational planes, that have been moved out their 2-D space, due to 3-D logic deformations. They sense the deformation but they do not try to explain the 3-D change. These deformations can defy 2-D logic, but may be fully consistent with 3-D logic. For example, science assumes life formed by a random series of events, that has no sound 2-D logic. This theory goes beyond 2-D toward 3-D. This is deformed 2-D plane moving out its normal space. However, at the level of 3-D logic, this would be explain as a logical change in 3-D.

As another example of the contrast, we all have the hunger instinct. This is a 3-D logic ball. Theoretically, there are a very wide range of food items that could satisfy the needs of human hunger. These foods are scattered all over the earth. A vegan will restrict their diet to a subset of all possible foods that could satisfy the 3-D instinct.

Once this data set is narrowed down and defined, the vegan can use 2-D logic of cause and affect, to put together a healthy diet. However, this diet does not make use of the entire spectrum of foods, theoretically defined by the 3-D logic of the hunger instinct. Reason can differentiate itself into a subset of 3-D; 2-D rational plane, where the exceptions in 2-D, do not exist in 3-D.

Say the vegan made a diet, that was lacking in certain nutrients, not contained fully, in just veggies. These extra foods are still a subset of the 3-D hunger instinct, even though it is not part of 2-D vegan logic. The internal 3-D hunger ball, is struck by the unconscious mind, to create an urge to accommodate the 3-D need. This is felt as an urge to leave the 2-D vegan logic plane, for something that is not seen as logical, in terms of the vegan logic set. This urge may be denied. There is a tendency for the left brain to abort deformation in 2-D, even those from 3-D changes that are sound. This is mostly because 3-D is not fully conscious.

 

[BilliardsBall]

View attachment 28631

Copy paste this image in MS Paint or alike.

Use the "select" function and draw a rectangle in the dark gray top.

Press ctrl+c

Press ctrl+v

Take the pasted rectangle and drag it unto the lighter gray bottom

Be amazed that the light gray and the dark gray, are actually the exact same kind of gray.

Yet, they don't appear the same kind of gray.






Sorry, couldn't help it...

No problem! You've just described the Christian conversion process: 1) Misunderstand what is in plain sight 2) Lose the blinders via Christ's death and resurrection power!

 

[Link]

Sometimes it's a fallacy of composition but I don't see how the cosmological argument does this fallacy.

Let us suppose a line is red. Go a billion miles or 2 cms, it's red. Go infinite with red, it's still red. In this case, it's not a fallacy of parts to the whole.

Now when we think of the infinite effects (cause and effect) series, what does it meant to say THE WHOLE thing is independent. The whole thing if includes future, still doesn't exist, and would need what is before to cause it. If past to present, then present, and time before, all that is also an effect. So the whole of it definitely didn't always exist. The whole is actually sophistry to make you think infinite so no need to explain. But think about, and you will SEE NONE of it is but was but an effect, or will be an effect, is an effect and only the present exists. Then it follows none of it always existed.

It's hard to wrap your ahead around, because we are assuming (infinite) then through that showing it's impossible but what people do is then appeal to "well it's infinite", which is just appealing to the thing trying to be disproved.

To make a summary:

"Whole" to series is incoherent to call it the universe or whole and say it either always existed or is self-caused because none of it always existed and none of will always exist and the present didn't always exist either, and none of like wise has been self-caused.
It follows the concept itself (whether infinite or not) is in need of coming to existence or being caused (both are true).
Infinite makes this paradoxical since by definition it would not need it, but at the same time, applied to the nature of the series, it would need it.
By contradiction, we can prove that time is finite and the series is finite.

 

[syo]

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.

What's a cause?