Cosmological argument, reformulated.

[cjschmidtz]

I have attempted to reformulate the cosmological argument in a way that allows it to inherently answer’s some common objections. This formulation not only provides reasons for belief, it also demonstrates how atheistic conceptions are inadequate in relation to the origin of the universe. This argument concludes that something must exist which is capable of transcending the physical laws of our existence.

This argument basically rests on a deduction from two facts which we know concerning how the universe operates and a third fact concerning our physical reality.

In considering the origin of the universe there are basically two possibilities; at some point either something came out of nothing or something has always existed.
Fact one
Believing that something could have come out of nothing is naturally inconceivable because of the law of conservation of energy and the logically simple and obvious statement “something cannot come from nothing.”
Fact two
Believing that something could have always existed is naturally inconceivable because of the law of cause and effect. Everything we know of works within the bounds of cause and effect, for something to be eternal it would have to exist without a cause, this is incomprehensible.
Fact three
The universe does it exist.

Conclusion
According to the physical laws that operate in our universe and in which we live - it should be completely impossible that anything exists. We do exist therefore something must exist which is capable of transcending the laws of our existence. Therefore something must have either always existed, or something came out of nothing. One of these two must have occurred. Some have suggested that this could be the universe itself but the answer is by nature unlike the universe therefore it cannot be the universe.

Objections
In trying to counter this argument there are four main points that can be critiqued, those four points are each of the three individual alleged facts and the main deduction that I make from them.

For example facts one and two can be used as reasons to discount the possible existence of my conclusion - God. If God is subject to the same limitations that the universe is then this would certainly disprove the possible existence of that kind of God. However as noted these two facts are also incompatible with our possible existence. Whether you apply them to the universe or to God it proves something must exist which can transcend the laws of our existence. This cannot be true of the natural universe; it can and must be true of something, this something we call God. This does not answer every question, but I consider that it can stand up to possible objections and provide a starting point for further considerations.

The certainty I have regarding this argument rests on the empirical certainty of those two facts and considering that this conclusion is more reasonable then the alternative.

 

[PolyHedral]

Believing that something could have always existed is naturally inconceivable because of the law of cause and effect. Everything we know of works within the bounds of cause and effect, for something to be eternal it would have to exist without a cause, this is incomprehensible.

Not for me it isn't. I can comprehend it just fine.

 

[Quintessence]

Not for me it isn't. I can comprehend it just fine.

I find neither supposedly "incomprehensible" aspect to be so.

If you can comprehend circles, you can comprehend something that doesn't have a beginning or end.

If you can comprehend Idea or Imagination, you can comprehend a thing to which the law of conservation of energy does not apply.

If you can comprehend limits to human knowledge, you can comprehend that actual nothingness and perceived nothingness are not the same.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I can't imagine how I'm not the smartest, best-looking person in the world. Therefore, it must be true.

 

[cjschmidtz]

poly, do you care to elaborate within the bounds of natural law? In other words when we empirically observe sequence of effects we can see cause’s and affects. We observe cause and effect akin to observing a series of dominos falling. We cannot see all causes but no one has ever observed an effect and has been able to demonstrate that nothing caused the said effect. Therefore we do have some reason to believe in this point of natural law, no reason to discount it, and no reason to believe that it is false.

I could express a possible objection and response but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. As it stands now my assenting to this fact of nature rests on observation, I hope that you do not expect us to abandon this in favor of someone who has made a statement which doesn’t even rise to the level of question begging? Perhaps you are claiming some kind of special authority and claim that your authority should trump empirical observations and the simplest of deductions?

 

[metis]

What would the problem be in accepting the possibility of infinity, which is slightly older than I am?

 

[cjschmidtz]

"I find neither supposedly "incomprehensible" aspect to be so.

If you can comprehend circles, you can comprehend something that doesn't have a beginning or end. "

​

We are considering two different things; I am considering something akin to the mere existence of the circle and the existence of those of us who are observing the circle while you are considering abstractly the geometric nature of the circle.

"If you can comprehend Idea or Imagination, you can comprehend a thing to which the law of conservation of energy does not apply."
​

I agree with you regarding the existence of things which are not physical, ideas, imagination, and principles of math, logic, concepts of beauty, happiness or value. Certainly something’s exist to which the law of conservation does not apply, however you are only countering the cosmological argument if you can demonstrate that this law does not apply to physical things, such as our bodies, the earth, the sun etc.

"If you can comprehend limits to human knowledge, you can comprehend that actual nothingness and perceived nothingness are not the same."
​

All this argument requires is the theoretical concept of actual nothingness, the simple concept of the absence of something. I will choose a logically simple and obvious belief over an abstract and meaningless concept of perceived nothingness. I am discussing something which is within the bounds of human knowledge; I am not discussing something outside the bounds of human comprehension. If you have perceived nothing and care to elaborate on how it is different from actual nothingness I invite you to explain.

 

[Willamena]

Believing that something could have come out of nothing is naturally inconceivable because of the law of conservation of energy and the logically simple and obvious statement “something cannot come from nothing.”

Not for me, it isn't inconceivable. Why, just now, I had a thought.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In considering the origin of the universe there are basically two possibilities; at some point either something came out of nothing or something has always existed.

How can you be certain that these are the only two possibilities? We already know from quantum mechanics that the difference between "nothing" and "something" is not as definite as intuition may make it appear.

Fact one
Believing that something could have come out of nothing is naturally inconceivable because of the law of conservation of energy and the logically simple and obvious statement “something cannot come from nothing.”

This isn't a fact. Firstly, just because you posit something is "inconceivable" doesn't mean it isn't actually, physically possible. The human ability to conceive or intuit such things is drastically limited, making this an incredibly sweeping statement. Secondly, it isn't inconceivable - it's just difficult to understand or know how yet. Thirdly, the law of conservation of energy clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so if you are utilizing that as the crux of your argument it completely undermines your claim that the Universe must have had a beginning since, then, that would violate the law of conservation of energy. You cannot evoke the same law to dismiss a counter-argument then prop up your own argument which contradicts the law.

Fact two
Believing that something could have always existed is naturally inconceivable because of the law of cause and effect. Everything we know of works within the bounds of cause and effect, for something to be eternal it would have to exist without a cause, this is incomprehensible.

Again, this is not a fact. "Everything we currently understand works this way" does not mean "this is exactly how everything in existence has ever worked ever", and "we cannot comprehend it" does not mean "it isn't possible". Also, once again, it's actually quite conceivable. I can imagine it perfectly well. If everything is a strict progression of cause and effect, then it's not difficult to imagine that everything is the result of a seemingly endless chain of causal events.

Your re-stating of the cosmological argument is really just a re-stating of it's fundamental flaws.

 

[Quintessence]

We are considering two different things; I am considering something akin to the mere existence of the circle and the existence of those of us who are observing the circle while you are considering abstractly the geometric nature of the circle.

You're taking what I said more literally than I intended. Western culture has long enforced the notion that time/existence is like a line: it has an absolute beginning and an absolute end. So beholden are most to this view that you're correct to say many can't comprehend anything outside of it. Yet there is a view outside of that ontological perspective: that time/existence is a circle that has no beginning or end. As someone with such a perspective, my brain just doesn't demand that something "had to" have a beginning or end as most in my culture do.

I agree with you regarding the existence of things which are not physical, ideas, imagination, and principles of math, logic, concepts of beauty, happiness or value. Certainly something’s exist to which the law of conservation does not apply, however you are only countering the cosmological argument if you can demonstrate that this law does not apply to physical things, such as our bodies, the earth, the sun etc.

Pardon, but must the cosmological be applied only to physical things? If so, why is that?

All this argument requires is the theoretical concept of actual nothingness, the simple concept of the absence of something. I will choose a logically simple and obvious belief over an abstract and meaningless concept of perceived nothingness. I am discussing something which is within the bounds of human knowledge; I am not discussing something outside the bounds of human comprehension. If you have perceived nothing and care to elaborate on how it is different from actual nothingness I invite you to explain.

I don't follow how perceived nothingness is meaningless. Ultimately, all human understanding of reality (the territory) is perception of the territory (a map). Perception and interpretation of the territory is all there is if you're a human! I would argue that everything a human calls "nothing" is, in fact, occupied by something: just not what the human expects to be there or what the human can sense with its limited faculties. I perceive there to be "nothing" between my eyeballs and the screen. This does not mean there is nothing there.

 

[cjschmidtz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjschmidtz

In considering the origin of the universe there are basically two possibilities; at some point either something came out of nothing or something has always existed.

Quintessence -“How can you be certain that these are the only two possibilities? We already know from quantum mechanics that the difference between "nothing" and "something" is not as definite as intuition may make it appear.”

----
This particular argument and several others that you have made fall into the category of asserting that speculation should be preferred over actuality. I don’t know that it is impossible that another option may exist. I make decisions and beliefs on the basis of actuality, what I do know rather then what I don’t know. For example over the course of the next year I plan on eating a variety of foods upon the consideration that this seems to be necessary if I want to live. However, within the next year I could eat something contaminated by e-coli, someone could poison me etc. In other words my plans are made on the basis of probable certainty, considering that absolute certainty is not available in this matter. We live with these kinds of situations all the time yet the propositions involved here are less certain then the ones I am discussing. In the case of food we are comparing the possibility of one known possibility with the possibility of several other known possibilities, and considering that there may also be unknown possibilities. In the case of the proposition I have suggested I am embracing two known possibilities over and against the speculative possible existence of an unknown possibility. You can make that choice if you so desire but it simply does not seem rational to me. The reference to quantum physics in my opinion adds no evidential or logical weight to the possibility of another explanation. Without admitting to a subjective personal aversion to the subsequent conclusion I cannot understand why someone would choose this as a possible counter to my argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjschmidtz
Fact one
Believing that something could have come out of nothing is naturally inconceivable because of the law of conservation of energy and the logically simple and obvious statement “something cannot come from nothing.”

Quintessence -“This isn't a fact. Firstly, just because you posit something is "inconceivable" doesn't mean it isn't actually, physically possible. The human ability to conceive or intuit such things is drastically limited, making this an incredibly sweeping statement. Secondly, it isn't inconceivable - it's just difficult to understand or know how yet. Thirdly, the law of conservation of energy clearly states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so if you are utilizing that as the crux of your argument it completely undermines your claim that the Universe must have had a beginning since, then that would violate the law of conservation of energy. You cannot evoke the same law to dismiss a counter-argument then prop up your own argument which contradicts the law.”

In my opinion point one and two is also subject to the critique I outlined regarding your earlier statement. We can also consider this comparative argument. If a beautiful woman suddenly materialized in front of me and said that she has been watching me, has fallen in love with me and transported here from a starship, I would be excited and startled but question my sanity. This is inconceivable but not as inconceivable as the proposition that something could come out of nothing. At least in the aforementioned analogy it would merely require the existence of something’s which seem highly unlikely but not impossible. In contrast the possibility of something coming out of nothing seems to be logically and empirically impossible.
Your third point has already been answered in my argument as I have formulated it. The cosmological argument as it is often formulated does require that premise but this particular argument is not dependent on the premise that the universe did have a beginning. This seems to be a common belief among astronomers and I happen to believe it as well but this particular argument is not dependent on that premise. This argument merely requires the conclusion that we would not exist without something which has transcended fact one, or fact two, believing that something has transcended both is not necessary for this argument. Therefore the argument does not suffer from internal inconsistency as you have alleged.
Your last point concerning cause and effect also contains elements of speculation vs actuality and I made further comments on the concept in another recent post.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This particular argument and several others that you have made fall into the category of asserting that speculation should be preferred over actuality.

Actually, no. It's about not jumping to conclusions before we have sufficient information. In your case, you are assuming the Universe works in a particular way because that's the way that makes sense to you, but spend any amount of time studying quantum mechanics and you'll quickly see how naive that idea is. The Universe doesn't follow such simple axioms as you seem to imply it does, and until we know more about it your assertions are utterly baseless.

I don’t know that it is impossible that another option may exist.

Then you have no basis to assert that those are the only two possible options and your argument is therefore setting up a false dichotomy from the start.

I make decisions and beliefs on the basis of actuality, what I do know rather then what I don’t know.

The problem is that you're applying things you know to things that you don't. You're seeing a constant that you understand and applying it in areas that you do not understand.

For example over the course of the next year I plan on eating a variety of foods upon the consideration that this seems to be necessary if I want to live. However, within the next year I could eat something contaminated by e-coli, someone could poison me etc. In other words my plans are made on the basis of probable certainty, considering that absolute certainty is not available in this matter. We live with these kinds of situations all the time yet the propositions involved here are less certain then the ones I am discussing.

There's a huge difference between knowledge based on an experience being applied to an every day scenario, and applying things we currently understand about something as vast and complicated and unknown about the Universe and saying that this applies universally. In terms of your analogy here, that is like saying because all of the food you have eaten in your life is sweet, it is impossible for something to taste bitter. The logic doesn't hold out when your experience is so limited.

In the case of food we are comparing the possibility of one known possibility with the possibility of several other known possibilities, and considering that there may also be unknown possibilities. In the case of the proposition I have suggested I am embracing two known possibilities over and against the speculative possible existence of an unknown possibility.

No, you're asserting that there are only two possibilities. You are making no allowance for a third, and you have no evidence to suggest that this dichotomy is accurate. That's what makes it a false dichotomy.

You can make that choice if you so desire but it simply does not seem rational to me. The reference to quantum physics in my opinion adds no evidential or logical weight to the possibility of another explanation. Without admitting to a subjective personal aversion to the subsequent conclusion I cannot understand why someone would choose this as a possible counter to my argument.

See above.

In my opinion point one and two is also subject to the critique I outlined regarding your earlier statement. We can also consider this comparative argument. If a beautiful woman suddenly materialized in front of me and said that she has been watching me, has fallen in love with me and transported here from a starship, I would be excited and startled but question my sanity. This is inconceivable but not as inconceivable as the proposition that something could come out of nothing.

Again, this argument has been addressed. What is "conceivable" is not what is relevant to reality, as what you conceive and what is actually happening are two different things. Also, going along with you apparent use of logic, I assume to come to this conclusion you must have examined an example of "nothing" from which you have drawn the conclusion that nothing can come from it. Since no such example of "nothing" exists, your assertion is scientifically without basis.

At least in the aforementioned analogy it would merely require the existence of something’s which seem highly unlikely but not impossible. In contrast the possibility of something coming out of nothing seems to be logically and empirically impossible.

Again, this is not a rebuke of my argument. What "seems" and what "is" are two different things. Your model fails to address this, and simply asserts (without evidence) that these are facts.

Your third point has already been answered in my argument as I have formulated it. The cosmological argument as it is often formulated does require that premise but this particular argument is not dependent on the premise that the universe did have a beginning. This seems to be a common belief among astronomers and I happen to believe it as well but this particular argument is not dependent on that premise. This argument merely requires the conclusion that we would not exist without something which has transcended fact one, or fact two, believing that something has transcended both is not necessary for this argument. Therefore the argument does not suffer from internal inconsistency as you have alleged.

Then since neither fact one nor fact two are facts, the argument fails to get off the ground.

Your last point concerning cause and effect also contains elements of speculation vs actuality and I made further comments on the concept in another recent post.

Again, speculation is all it takes to counter speculation, which is all your argument is. Just because you word it as "facts" does not make it so.

 

[cjschmidtz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjschmidtz
I don’t know that it is impossible that another option may exist.

ImmortalFlame “Then you have no basis to assert that those are the only two possible options and your argument is therefore setting up a false dichotomy from the start.”

I would like to compare my understanding of a false dichotomy to your own. My understanding involves asserting that a false dichotomy has occurred when someone can provide a solution that is outside the possible conclusions that have been represented. In contrast yours seems to imply that unless someone can rule out the possible existence of unknown alternative possibilities any potential conclusions should be rejected. I think an analogy can be both entertaining an enlightening.
I can consider that you may be an actual human being, a component in a dream I am having, a projection of my unconscious mind, or part of a virtual reality machine in witch I am envatted. In consideration of this I realize that several other possibilities may exist and I also cannot know that it is impossible that another option may exist. In accordance with Immortal Flame’s understanding of a false dichotomy I should reject all of these possible conclusions because if I do not do so I am guilty of making a false dichotomy. Therefore it would not be rational for me to consider that you are real or any of these other possibilities.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Conclusion
According to the physical laws that operate in our universe and in which we live - it should be completely impossible that anything exists.

Ehhhh.....No. This does not follow from anything in your three initial "facts." The "physical laws that operate" in fact strongly support that matter does and should exist, and behave exactly as it appears to do.

What physics research has shown is that there is still some uncertainty in our knowledge of exactly how our current universe came into being. Now that it exists, it is pretty clear that matter at least behaves exactly according to the laws we have identified.

What physics cannot do currently is tell us what laws of physics might have operated prior to the "big bang" event roughly 13.8 billion years ago. Nor can physics currently tell us what happens inside the event horizon of the black hole. And, currently, physics cannot tell us what dark matter and dark energy are.

However, the multiverse theory is one way of addressing both of the first two "facts" as you present them.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have attempted to reformulate the cosmological argument in a way that allows it to inherently answer’s some common objections. This formulation not only provides reasons for belief, it also demonstrates how atheistic conceptions are inadequate in relation to the origin of the universe. This argument concludes that something must exist which is capable of transcending the physical laws of our existence.

Okay. Have at it.

This argument basically rests on a deduction from two facts which we know concerning how the universe operates and a third fact concerning our physical reality.

In considering the origin of the universe there are basically two possibilities; at some point either something came out of nothing or something has always existed.

Okay. with you so far.

Fact one
Believing that something could have come out of nothing is naturally inconceivable because of the law of conservation of energy and the logically simple and obvious statement “something cannot come from nothing.”

Actually this isn't a "fact". For a few reasons. The first being a total misconception of what it means to "come from" something. Nothing has ever spontaneously been created from already existing matter. At least not that we have observed. So something just as logically can't come from something. The creation of mass is unknown to us.

It is also quite notable that we have never observed "nothing". We cannot peer outside the universe to see what kind of properties "nothing" has.

So this is far from a fact. What it is, is a claim based on misinformation of how the world works.

Fact two
Believing that something could have always existed is naturally inconceivable because of the law of cause and effect. Everything we know of works within the bounds of cause and effect, for something to be eternal it would have to exist without a cause, this is incomprehensible.

Well...incomprehensible and impossible are two different things. More or less its boils down to "we don't know". It seems that our universe has some kind of origin. We don't know for certain but we know we are expanding. So this isn't really a fact. Its just another claim that really isn't backed by anything. Its not impossible of course but we also don't "know".

Fact three
The universe does it exist.

I am inclined to believe you.

Conclusion
According to the physical laws that operate in our universe and in which we live - it should be completely impossible that anything exists. We do exist therefore something must exist which is capable of transcending the laws of our existence. Therefore something must have either always existed, or something came out of nothing. One of these two must have occurred. Some have suggested that this could be the universe itself but the answer is by nature unlike the universe therefore it cannot be the universe.

Well this is a ton of claims. However the three facts above are not facts but claims based on false information.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would like to compare my understanding of a false dichotomy to your own. My understanding involves asserting that a false dichotomy has occurred when someone can provide a solution that is outside the possible conclusions that have been represented.

No, that's not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when you present a limited range of possible alternatives without consideration for other possibilities.

In contrast yours seems to imply that unless someone can rule out the possible existence of unknown alternative possibilities any potential conclusions should be rejected. I think an analogy can be both entertaining an enlightening.

Again, this is not what I'm saying. What you are saying is that these are the only two possible options, and what I'm saying is that there is no good reason to consider that those are the only two possible options. The problem isn't that we have not ruled out other possibilities, the problem is that you are making sweeping claims with very limited knowledge and asserting that anything outside of that is impossible to occur.

I can consider that you may be an actual human being, a component in a dream I am having, a projection of my unconscious mind, or part of a virtual reality machine in witch I am envatted. In consideration of this I realize that several other possibilities may exist and I also cannot know that it is impossible that another option may exist. In accordance with Immortal Flame’s understanding of a false dichotomy I should reject all of these possible conclusions because if I do not do so I am guilty of making a false dichotomy. Therefore it would not be rational for me to consider that you are real or any of these other possibilities.

You don't seem to have a firm grasp of my argument, or of what a false dichotomy is. This analogy has absolutely no relation to any argument I've made, because we're not talking about things that we have good reasons to believe - we're talking about your claim that there are very limited possibilities, for which you have no evidence.

 

[cjschmidtz]

Again, this is not what I'm saying. What you are saying is that these are the only two possible options, and what I'm saying is that there is no good reason to consider that those are the only two possible options.

You have no third option to suggest…. But you think I am unreasonable in discussing the issue within the context of what we know, ie the options that are available to us.

Concerning the false dichotomy I consider discussing it within the context of something we know is a good and completely typical way of understanding the difference between a fallacy and a good argument. All books on fallacies constantly do this so we can understand how the principles work as an evaluative tool. Even the skeptics dictionary does not try to push the concept beyond a failure to include “viable alternatives.”

In other words if you can come up with a real third option I will be happy to add that into the realm of discussed possibilities and acknowledge I had previously made a false dichotomy; until then I don’t think you have demonstrated my response was inadequate.

 

[cjschmidtz]

“Well...incomprehensible and impossible are two different things. More or less its boils down to "we don't know". It seems that our universe has some kind of origin. We don't know for certain but we know we are expanding. So this isn't really a fact. Its just another claim that really isn't backed by anything. Its not impossible of course but we also don't "know".” Immortal Monk

I consider that I am following a train of thought like we have in regards to considering an expanding universe. We see that it is expanding and we deduce the Big Bang as a result of thinking through the logical implications. We can also make a variety of projections concerning what will happen in the future as matter and energy continue to be disbursed. I currently embrace a belief in God and a belief in the Big Bang but personally my doubts concerning the Big Bang are comparatively greater.
Ps
I still plan on discussing the difference between nothing and something within the context of posted comments.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have no third option to suggest…. But you think I am unreasonable in discussing the issue within the context of what we know, ie the options that are available to us.

Once again, no, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is you making the assertion that it is impossible for it to be anything other than these two options.

Concerning the false dichotomy I consider discussing it within the context of something we know is a good and completely typical way of understanding the difference between a fallacy and a good argument. All books on fallacies constantly do this so we can understand how the principles work as an evaluative tool. Even the skeptics dictionary does not try to push the concept beyond a failure to include “viable alternatives.”

In other words if you can come up with a real third option I will be happy to add that into the realm of discussed possibilities and acknowledge I had previously made a false dichotomy; until then I don’t think you have demonstrated my response was inadequate.

Your inability to respond to my arguments is noted.

 

[cjschmidtz]

I would argue that everything a human calls "nothing" is, in fact, occupied by something.” Quintessence

Thankfully both sides agree that something exists but some controversy exists over the concept of nothing.

Some such as Professor Lawrence Kraus do not seem to make a real distinction between something and nothing. If it is possible that the term nothing can be used to describe something then in this case the term is merely rendered meaningless (if A equals B then B equals A.) If this is the case, or if the further conclusion that something has always existed is embraced then my argument still works. The argument is not dependent on the belief that at some point there was in fact “nothing,” my argument is dependent on the idea that if at some point nothing did exist, then something could not have arisen out of that nothing.

Considering the term Fuzzy, or asserting we would need to get outside of the universe to understand it etc.
The concept of something and nothing can be understood in mathematical terms. In a generic sense I use the term something to represent an x number of things it may be 1, a particular larger number or an unknown number of 1 or more things. If the only thing that existed was myself, we could consider that one thing or break it down into component parts, atoms, electrons etc in which case we would have a particular number of things. In other words in the term “something” I use x to represent the particular number ranging from 1 to whatever number would represent the currently unknown number of things in the universe. At times we may want to use the term many things in order to communicate more clearly but this does not affect my argument.
Nothing in contrast only needs to be represented by 0. As I use the term if I am referring to any 1 or more things I am referring to something. In contrast nothing refers to 0 or no-things. In the sense the idea of something coming out of nothing is like making equations in which you only have the value of 0 and there is nothing you can do with it because if you could do anything with it you would be dealing with something other than nothing.