Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

[Rational Agnostic]

Many versions of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God go something like this.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It's an almost trivially simple argument, and it is certainly valid. Whether it is sound or not depends on the truth value of each premise, and the premises certainly are debatable. But, that is not my objection to the argument. In this case, for the sake of argument, I will grant that the argument is sound, and that each premise is true thus making the conclusion true. Even if this is the case, using it as an argument for the existence of God (or even worse, a specific God concept) fails to work. Suppose the universe does have a cause. There are many possibilities for its cause other than god. Maybe it's an alien kid's science experiment. Maybe it's the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself. Maybe a metaphysical dragon from another universe barfed it up. Who knows? But, to go from "the universe had a cause" to "the God of Religion X must exist" is a laughably illogical leap. Yet, many supposed apologists of major religions, particularly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continue to use this argument, despite how weak it is. It never cease to amaze me that people still fall for this pathetically weak argument....

 

[metis]

At least mathematically, Hawking showed that a universe could literally pop out of nothing and nowhere.

Is that what happened? I maybe be ol--er, I mean mature-- but I ain't that mature.

 

[David T]

Many versions of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God go something like this.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It's an almost trivially simple argument, and it is certainly valid. Whether it is sound or not depends on the truth value of each premise, and the premises certainly are debatable. But, that is not my objection to the argument. In this case, for the sake of argument, I will grant that the argument is sound, and that each premise is true thus making the conclusion true. Even if this is the case, using it as an argument for the existence of God (or even worse, a specific God concept) fails to work. Suppose the universe does have a cause. There are many possibilities for its cause other than god. Maybe it's an alien kid's science experiment. Maybe it's the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself. Maybe a metaphysical dragon from another universe barfed it up. Who knows? But, to go from "the universe had a cause" to "the God of Religion X must exist" is a laughably illogical leap. Yet, many supposed apologists of major religions, particularly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continue to use this argument, despite how weak it is. It never cease to amaze me that people still fall for this pathetically weak argument....

Well that's a partially reasoned statement that's upon reflection is self evident. Since it's self evident it brings us to a dysfunction neurologically in a particular region of the brain. The problem then is the The exact same phenomena that creates the Confusion in context to in this case intellectualized cosmology now can create an intellectualizing of neurology. This can be as fantasy driven as any intellectualized cosmology. Breathing, and a healthy dosage of getting out is a greatly under appreciated thing we don't do much of. About 1 second in nature can cure it. But getting to that 1 second can take a lifetime, that many never accomplish.....so Sad.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many versions of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God go something like this.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It's an almost trivially simple argument, and it is certainly valid. Whether it is sound or not depends on the truth value of each premise, and the premises certainly are debatable. But, that is not my objection to the argument. In this case, for the sake of argument, I will grant that the argument is sound, and that each premise is true thus making the conclusion true. Even if this is the case, using it as an argument for the existence of God (or even worse, a specific God concept) fails to work. Suppose the universe does have a cause. There are many possibilities for its cause other than god. Maybe it's an alien kid's science experiment. Maybe it's the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself. Maybe a metaphysical dragon from another universe barfed it up. Who knows? But, to go from "the universe had a cause" to "the God of Religion X must exist" is a laughably illogical leap. Yet, many supposed apologists of major religions, particularly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continue to use this argument, despite how weak it is. It never cease to amaze me that people still fall for this pathetically weak argument....

Agree that formally, the syllogism is valid if not sound, and that it is not an argument for God.

William Lane Craig uses the Kalam Cosmological argument, which appends a second syllogism (sort of) to introduce God into the argument:

1. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”
2. “The universe began to exist.”
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.”
4. “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.”
5. “Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”​

This argument, besides being a non sequitur, doesn't invoke his god.

It's a non sequitur because, as you undoubtedly know, the existence of a universe with a beginning doesn't imply a god, much less one so specifically defined. Why not a multiverse? Why not an uncaused universe with a beginning? Why not two gods?

 

[YmirGF]

Agree that formally, the syllogism is valid if not sound, and that it is not an argument for God.

William Lane Craig uses the Kalam Cosmological argument, which appends a second syllogism to introduce God into the argument:

1. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”
2. “The universe began to exist.”
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.”
4. “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.”
5. “Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”​

This argument, besides being a non sequitur, doesn't invoke his god.

It's a non sequitur because, as you undoubtedly know, the existence of a universe with a beginning doesn't imply a god, much less one so specifically defined. Why not a multiverse? Why not an uncaused universe with a beginning? Why not two gods?

Heck, for that matter, it could have been an accident, a result of a "perfect storm-like" scenario.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Suppose the universe does have a cause. There are many possibilities for its cause other than god. .

And what if one were to replace the word "universe" with "multiverse"?

 

[shunyadragon]

At least mathematically, Hawking showed that a universe could literally pop out of nothing and nowhere.

Is that what happened? I maybe be ol--er, I mean mature-- but I ain't that mature.

That is not really what Hawking proposed. The out of nothing proposed by Hawking is the origin of the universe through Quantum world of Quantum zero-point energy, and Quantum gravity, sort of miss named as "nothing." There is no "nowhere" involved. The Universe would have come into being through Natural Laws.

 

[shunyadragon]

And what if one were to replace the word "universe" with "multiverse"?

It would not change anything. Though if we. our universe, formed by natural laws in a natural environment we're likely not the only one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not really what Hawking proposed. The out of nothing proposed by Hawking is the origin of the universe through Quantum world of Quantum zero-point energy, and Quantum gravity, sort of miss named as "nothing." There is no "nowhere" involved. The Universe would have come into being through Natural Laws.

Correct, the actual cosmological argument does not invoke a hyper intelligent being. Worse yet if the universe requires a hyper intelligent being to be made then by the same "logic" the hyper intelligent being needs a hyper hyper intelligent creator. The old turtles all the way down argument.

 

[metis]

That is not really what Hawking proposed. The out of nothing proposed by Hawking is the origin of the universe through Quantum world of Quantum zero-point energy, and Quantum gravity, sort of miss named as "nothing." There is no "nowhere" involved. The Universe would have come into being through Natural Laws.

You're likely correct, imo, and, as a matter of fact, according to Leonard Susskind, most cosmologists believe that it is most likely that there is no ultimate cause as it all goes back into infinity, which is only slightly older than I am.

However, Hawking did say that the laws of physics do not necessarily require a cause and that a particle could just appear, therefore q.m. may not even necessarily apply. I was watching a PBS special on him just a few days ago, and at one point the above is what he said.

BTW, and excellent book that well covers numerous hypotheses on this is "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini. I understood maybe half of it because so much of it he covers by posting mathematical formulas that are well over my head.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're likely correct, imo, and, as a matter of fact, according to Leonard Susskind, most cosmologists believe that it is most likely that there is no ultimate cause as it all goes back into infinity, which is only slightly older than I am.

However, Hawking did say that the laws of physics do not necessarily require a cause and that a particle could just appear, therefore q.m. may not even necessarily apply. I was watching a PBS special on him just a few days ago, and at one point the above is what he said.

BTW, and excellent book that well covers numerous hypotheses on this is "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini. I understood maybe half of it because so much of it he covers by posting mathematical formulas that are well over my head.

Add to this the fact that the laws of physics & the history of the universe(s)
are always a work in progress. There are a great many possibilities.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Many versions of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God go something like this.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It's an almost trivially simple argument, and it is certainly valid. Whether it is sound or not depends on the truth value of each premise, and the premises certainly are debatable. But, that is not my objection to the argument. In this case, for the sake of argument, I will grant that the argument is sound, and that each premise is true thus making the conclusion true. Even if this is the case, using it as an argument for the existence of God (or even worse, a specific God concept) fails to work. Suppose the universe does have a cause. There are many possibilities for its cause other than god. Maybe it's an alien kid's science experiment. Maybe it's the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself. Maybe a metaphysical dragon from another universe barfed it up. Who knows? But, to go from "the universe had a cause" to "the God of Religion X must exist" is a laughably illogical leap. Yet, many supposed apologists of major religions, particularly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continue to use this argument, despite how weak it is. It never cease to amaze me that people still fall for this pathetically weak argument....

Lol!! You might be right! *Grin*

It would certainly seem the universe would have to be considered as being part of a continuum by which universes come and go. It would follow a god or any kind of intelligence would certainly be subject to the same criteria as natural occurrences and phenomena applicable in a continuum.

I would say if there was no evidence of any type of intelligence or form of creation responsible for the universe and ourselves, it's definitely not apparant in the here and now, and I don't even know how people even base such things if all you have going is hearsay and old artifacts.

I pretty much go along the lines if it's not there, it's not there. Noting the facts as they stand for which nobody can entertain any level of plausibility if there's nothing in actuality to base it on that can be effectively approached and followed through in order to come to some answers.

 

[Polymath257]

And what if one were to replace the word "universe" with "multiverse"?

In most descriptions, the multiverse doesn't have a beginning.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Many versions of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God go something like this.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It's an almost trivially simple argument, and it is certainly valid. Whether it is sound or not depends on the truth value of each premise, and the premises certainly are debatable. But, that is not my objection to the argument. In this case, for the sake of argument, I will grant that the argument is sound, and that each premise is true thus making the conclusion true. Even if this is the case, using it as an argument for the existence of God (or even worse, a specific God concept) fails to work. Suppose the universe does have a cause. There are many possibilities for its cause other than god. Maybe it's an alien kid's science experiment. Maybe it's the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself. Maybe a metaphysical dragon from another universe barfed it up. Who knows? But, to go from "the universe had a cause" to "the God of Religion X must exist" is a laughably illogical leap. Yet, many supposed apologists of major religions, particularly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continue to use this argument, despite how weak it is. It never cease to amaze me that people still fall for this pathetically weak argument....

I guess to me it's pretty simple. Everything is recycled. We don't pop out of thin air nor do we disappear. Everything changes. They combine. They form. They explode. They dissolve to form other substance some naked to the eye. Yet, because we have the universe, the presence of forming, growing, and exploding "things" we know life goes in a cycle and is interconnected.

Once you have a first cause, there needs to be a cause before that. If there was a first cause, logically, all results should have a cause. There is nothing unique about a first cause to where it should not have a cause of its own.

I never asked christians about this argument, though. I kinda wish I could but then they'd have to be interested in exploring what it's like not having a first cause. Don't know if that's possible yet we can use our imagination to form stories.

Shrugs.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

At least mathematically, Hawking showed that a universe could literally pop out of nothing and nowhere.

Is that what happened? I maybe be ol--er, I mean mature-- but I ain't that mature.

Don't know if that's accurate or not, but I highly doubt it's been mathematically proven. BTW, Hawking believes a lot of weird stuff that I am quite confident he's wrong about, like the idea that robots will dominate the world, alien "colonization" is a legitimate and imminent concern, and that the earth will soon be as hot as Venus. Intelligence does not always translate into common sense or rationality.

 

[Enoch07]

Many versions of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God go something like this.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It's an almost trivially simple argument, and it is certainly valid. Whether it is sound or not depends on the truth value of each premise, and the premises certainly are debatable. But, that is not my objection to the argument. In this case, for the sake of argument, I will grant that the argument is sound, and that each premise is true thus making the conclusion true. Even if this is the case, using it as an argument for the existence of God (or even worse, a specific God concept) fails to work. Suppose the universe does have a cause. There are many possibilities for its cause other than god. Maybe it's an alien kid's science experiment. Maybe it's the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself. Maybe a metaphysical dragon from another universe barfed it up. Who knows? But, to go from "the universe had a cause" to "the God of Religion X must exist" is a laughably illogical leap. Yet, many supposed apologists of major religions, particularly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continue to use this argument, despite how weak it is. It never cease to amaze me that people still fall for this pathetically weak argument....

Yet your argument is equally pathetic and weak, which you even admit. You are just as guilty as the theist you are judging.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Yet your argument is equally pathetic and weak, which you even admit. You are just as guilty as the theist you are judging.

I didn't make any argument; I just illustrated that the cosmological argument fails. No idea what you're alluding to.

 

[Enoch07]

I didn't make any argument; I just illustrated that the cosmological argument fails. No idea what you're alluding to.

If you don't even understand your own idea, I am not even going to try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you don't even understand your own idea, I am not even going to try.

He appears to understand his own idea. You on the other hand . . . not so much.

 

[Enoch07]

He appears to understand his own idea. You on the other hand . . . not so much.

That why he needs you to speak for him then eh?