Cosmological argument, reformulated.

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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.

The standard model holds that time did not exist before the origin of the universe. Even if we do not accept this, there is no way to limit our options to the two you suggest:
1) Time, whether expressed as the distance traversed by light or as some unit like seconds or light-years, cannot always be expressed in terms of points. In particular, a nonlinear view of "time" relative to an observer, either within our own spacetime coordinates or in some pocket universe, renders meaningless the notion that there exists a "point" in time at all or ever.

2) You note later that Krauss' abominable popular book questions the meaningfulness of "nothing". The real issue is what we mean by something, or rather what being a thing entails relative to the absence of any and all things.

3) If the universe came out of nothing, then our colloquial sense of "nothing is utterly irrelevant. To "come out of nothing" means that there is something we are either incapable or currently unable to conceptualize as that which is not "nothing" while neither being what we call "something".

Fact one
Believing that something could have come out of nothing is naturally inconceivable

It happens frequently.

because of the law of conservation of energy and the logically simple and obvious statement “something cannot come from nothing

And these laws belong to the 19th century.

Fact two
Believing that something could have always existed is naturally inconceivable because of the law of cause and effect.

There is no real "law of cause and effect". We model causation by naively or scientifically selecting initial states and seeing what happens. In many cases, we could reverse the set of "causes" and make them "effects. Classical causality wasn't just challenged, It was completely eradicated by the removal of any absolute frame of reference, circular causality in complex systems, self-organized systems and emergence, and quantum physics.

Everything we know of works within the bounds of cause and effect

We can describe everything this way. I've addressed this before:
Causality is inconsistent with modern physics

and in this post I linked to several other posts on this issue I've written on this forum.

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

If there were any physical laws that operate at all, something must exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

...
If there were any physical laws that operate at all, something must exist.

All of it +1000. I can't frubal you because the system tells me I have to give someone else first.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All of it +1000. I can't frubal you because the system tells me I have to give someone else first.

Such kind a praise is surely worth more:
“One can pay back the loan of gold, but one dies forever in debt to those who are kind.”

 

[ruffen]

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.”

Not necessarily true. The law of conservation of energy can be broken for short periods of time (ie. spontaneous and seemingly un-caused creation of particle-antiparticle pairs in empty space). The more energy it requires, the shorter-lived the particles are.

If our Universe has a total energy of exactly zero, it can last indefinitely. The discovery of a small amount of negative energy residing in empty space (which is one plausible explanation of dark energy), is at exactly the amount predicted if our Universe has a total energy of 0.

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.

This also may not be true - we do not know anything about the "realm" or "thing" that gave rise to our Universe. If it is unthinkable that anything can last forever, and yet unconceivable that anything can spontaneously arise from no pre-existing conditions, then God is equally impossible as the existence of our Universe.

Fact three
The universe does it exist.

Yes it does.

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.

Bythe same logic, if God exists, then God must have been created by something else that is not God?

 

[cjschmidtz]

Time, whether expressed as the distance traversed by light or as some unit like seconds or light-years, cannot always be expressed in terms of points. In particular, a nonlinear view of "time" relative to an observer, either within our own spacetime coordinates or in some pocket universe, renders meaningless the notion that there exists a "point" in time at all or ever.

From my perspective ideas like these and many others merely demonstrate how desperate some people to avoid the implications of theistic arguments. The sentences have some appearance of rationality but they break down when considered in the context of the real world. My argument is not dependent on the conclusion that time did or did not start with the Big Bang, therefore mentioning that is irrelevant. I do not consider discussing whether time passes at a constant rate to be overly significant but time is certainly linear. We can consider time relative to an observer within the context of minutes, years, or a hundred years, and it is still a linear concept both rationally and from an individual perspective as an observer. Our experience of time is certainly relative but it is still linear. If people succeed in traveling faster than light, if we do find that other universes exist and are able to travel between them….. I still expect they will find time to be linear but I will be happy to consider any new information and then we can re-evaluate time as a linear concept. Until then I merely find it strange when I see people choose to reject the obvious in favor of wishful thinking concerning possible alternate realities.

 

[cjschmidtz]

Bythe same logic, if God exists, then God must have been created by something else that is not God?

This issue is inherently answered by the argument as I presented it. In short form - our universe exists within the constraints of physical laws, however for our universe to exist something must exist which is able to transcend those laws. That which can transcend the physical laws of our universe I call God and something which can transcend the physical laws of our universe does not need to have been created.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This issue is inherently answered by the argument as I presented it. In short form - our universe exists within the constraints of physical laws, however for our universe to exist something must exist which is able to transcend those laws. That which can transcend the physical laws of our universe I call God and something which can transcend the physical laws of our universe does not need to have been created.

Right, of our Universe though. So where does God exist? Is it another Universe? Another space? If so does that Universe have it's own laws that allows God to interact with ours? And allows something to happen where they would be nothing?

 

[cjschmidtz]

Not necessarily true. The law of conservation of energy can be broken for short periods of time (ie. spontaneous and seemingly un-caused creation of particle-antiparticle pairs in empty space). The more energy it requires, the shorter-lived the particles are.

Converting energy into matter should be entirely possible and is perhaps only limited by our technology. This may in the future have practical implications but is inconsequential to my worldview. Scientists harnessing intelligence, matter and energy in order to create technology which is able to change pre-existing energy into matter should not be equated with the uncaused creation of matter and energy out of nothing.
In contrast if the spontaneous and un-caused creation of particles had been observed and could be understood in naturalistic terms then certainly that would counter my claims.

 

[nazz]

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.

Works for me

The only thing I can think to add is that some confusion sets in when we use the nebulous term "God" to define the Source of the All. When most people hear that term it is associated with a certain type of being that might not really fit as the conclusion of the reasoning.

 

[nazz]

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

do you really comprehend it or do you merely accept it? I ask this because I think it is possible to accept something that is logically impossible.

 

[nazz]

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

Are you claiming that thought came out of nothing?

 

[Aupmanyav]

In contrast if the spontaneous and un-caused creation of particles had been observed and could be understood in naturalistic terms then certainly that would counter my claims.

That is what happens in case of virtual particles.

 

[cjschmidtz]

That is what happens in case of virtual particles.

If virtual particles do exist, they do so as a reaction to the interaction of real particles. They also have no mass and at best exist temporarily. This is hardly a case of something from nothing.

 

[cjschmidtz]

The only thing I can think to add is that some confusion sets in when we use the nebulous term "God" to define the Source of the All. When most people hear that term it is associated with a certain type of being that might not really fit as the conclusion of the reasoning. Nazz

I acknowledge your point; I have admitted that God as understood in the context of this argument could at best be considered vaguely defined. However, I know that it is hard for people to understand the nature of how this kind of limitation works, therefore people react because it seems I am claiming to prove more than the argument itself can justify. Having said this I have been unsure of how to navigate this issue.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I acknowledge your point; I have admitted that God as understood in the context of this argument could at best be considered vaguely defined. However, I know that it is hard for people to understand the nature of how this kind of limitation works, therefore people react because it seems I am claiming to prove more than the argument itself can justify. Having said this I have been unsure of how to navigate this issue.

So, just to be clear: along with your conclusions not following from your antecedent propositions, you are also acknowledging that your terms are poorly defined, and therefore your reasoning is open to interpretation. And you're surprised when others question both your assumptions and you conclusions, and ask that you be clearer.

I would suggest clearly defining your terms and assumptions, then stating your propositions in a way that clearly and logically leads to your conclusion.

 

[cjschmidtz]

So, just to be clear: along with your conclusions not following from your antecedent propositions, you are also acknowledging that your terms are poorly defined, and therefore your reasoning is open to interpretation.

I was acknowledging a particular point that relates to dealing with a common misunderstanding. The misunderstanding exists because people sometimes extend conclusions beyond what can be justified. In this particular case I consider that the argument supports the belief that something exists which we can call God but I acknowledge that by itself this argument can only support a very limited awareness. Nazz referred to related difficulties in that people have a tendency to poor a lot of meaning and depth of understanding into our understanding of God; however that understanding goes beyond what can be justified in the context of this very limited argument. Those things all may, or may not also be justified on other grounds but they are beyond the scope of this particular line of thought.

Your post is actually an extremely good example of the underlying issue because you read a statement and then apparently assumed that it had all kinds of implications which do not at all relate to the point that had been made. I was referring to the particular definition of God, you extended that without reason and assumed that I was saying all my definitions deductions were vague etc....

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

The problem is that, regardless of how many times the cosmological argument or any other argument of natural theology is formulated, it faces the same fatal fork; either beg the question, or remain logically invalid. If an argument that concludes that God exists does not contain God in one of the premises, it would have to be invalid- but its hard to see how an argument seeking to establish the existence of God can contain a premise regarding the conditions for God's existence, without begging the question, at least implicitly. Thus, natural theology is sort of a search for fool's gold; even on the best case scenario, it will fail to achieve the desired goal.

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.”

It may be "logically simple and obvious", but the principle of sufficient reason is neither a well-corroborated empirical truth nor a logically necessary truth, so its inclusion here is somewhat problematic. It sounds intuitive, but its hard to see how it could ever be properly substantiated; at best its a tentative working hypothesis.

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.

It is perfectly comprehensible; counter-intuitive, but logically possible. We've already had our naive, deterministic view of causality severely undermined by QM, so its entirely possible for, e.g. the universe as a whole, to have always existed, and not have any initial cause.

But that's moot, since your argument here doesn't work anyways; it is possible for causality to hold, such that every effect/event has an antecedent cause, and for there to have been an infinite sequence of cause-and-effect, such that there was never any FIRST cause. This is not only conceivable, but intuitively plausible. Moreover, contrary to the claims of, e.g. WLC and others, contemporary cosmology remains open to the possibility of an eternal/cyclical universe.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Hello forums

Well to call it God all the time is to bring emotional attachment into it, which can be good sometimes. But infinity is a perfectly rational concept of The Absolute reality.

It can be thought of in a very scientific way, it is simply the groundlessness from which the phenomenal world evolves from. All scientific discoveries are valid to a relative world. Like gravity, evolution, and chemistry.

The issue that's at the heart of this debate
(its a really old ongoing debate) is the warring philosophies often confused for theism vs atheism

Empiricism, which claims its only real if it can be weighed measured , seen, etc.
This forms the basis of most western science, it describes a pluralistic and well behaved universe, that follows basic laws of cause and effect.
And
Radical idealism, which claims that only the unseen is real, this is common in relgious groups. It describes a universe were all things are possible by some unseen means.

Weres the balance, extremism never pans out right.

 

[nazz]

Hello forums

Well to call it God all the time is to bring emotional attachment into it, which can be good sometimes. But infinity is a perfectly rational concept of The Absolute reality.

It can be thought of in a very scientific way, it is simply the groundlessness from which the phenomenal world evolves from. All scientific discoveries are valid to a relative world. Like gravity, evolution, and chemistry.

The issue that's at the heart of this debate
(its a really old ongoing debate) is the warring philosophies often confused for theism vs atheism

Empiricism, which claims its only real if it can be weighed measured , seen, etc.
This forms the basis of most western science, it describes a pluralistic and well behaved universe, that follows basic laws of cause and effect.
And
Radical idealism, which claims that only the unseen is real, this is common in relgious groups. It describes a universe were all things are possible by some unseen means.

Weres the balance, extremism never pans out right.

gave you a frubal for this

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But infinity is a perfectly rational concept of The Absolute reality.

Um, what?

All scientific discoveries are valid to a relative world. Like gravity, evolution, and chemistry.

What does this statement mean?

The issue that's at the heart of this debate
(its a really old ongoing debate) is the warring philosophies often confused for theism vs atheism

Empiricism, which claims its only real if it can be weighed measured , seen, etc.
This forms the basis of most western science, it describes a pluralistic and well behaved universe, that follows basic laws of cause and effect.
And
Radical idealism, which claims that only the unseen is real, this is common in relgious groups. It describes a universe were all things are possible by some unseen means.

This isn't very accurate; for one thing, empiricism is an epistemological position, not an ontological one- it concerns what can be known, and how, not what exists. For another, empiricism is not the position that "its only real if it can be weighed, measured, seen, etc"- it is the position that all knowledge is ultimately based in experience; this is, at best, a caricature. Also, some of the most radical forms of empiricism question the status of causality (as in Hume).

Nor is this an accurate description of idealism- idealism does not hold that "only the unseen is real", but that reality is fundamentally mental; that something like ideas, or experience, are the fundamental constituents of reality.

And in any case, even when we get our definitions sorted out, I fail to see how any disputes between idealism and realism/physicalism, empiricism and rationalism, and so on, are at "the heart of the debate" between atheism and theism (much less the debate over natural theology in particular), although there certainly can be connections drawn here.