Heyo
Veteran Member
I like it when a debate comes to a conclusion. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I find that satisfying, don't you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The cosmological argument revisted.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok, if we dont agree, then exactly what is your view?........... do you belive that the big bang represents the beginning of the universe? (including time) … do you belive that there was something before the big bang?............... was this something eternal?.............what is your view?
Yes, yes, I know that the answer is “I don’t know” …. But based on the evidence that we have to date, which is the most plausible scenario?.......... my suggestion is that the universe (including time) begin to exist at the big bang………. Do you have a better idea?
That is false, there are many good reasons to assume the existence of an uncaused cause……..the Kalam cosmological argument is an example among many other arguments that support this idea.
I would love to see that evidnece
Ok I am assuming that you are defending a model called emergent universe, where a cosmic egg (singularity) excited from eternity past………and “banged” 13.8B years ago…. Under this model time was curved during in this egg and therefore was “frozen” (if not inexistent)………..if this is a misrepresentation of your view, please let me know.
that has been refuted both by science (Did the universe have a beginning?) and logic
science:
this "eternal cosmic egg " will eventually collapse due to quantum mechanics" and therefore cant be ethernal in to the past
reed more
Did the universe have a beginning?
Logic
It remeains inexplicable, why would this egg "bang" 13.8 B years ago?
If the egg is sufficient to cause the big bang, and if the egg has always existed, then why the egg banged 13.8B years ago? Why not at infinite past?
An analogy would be.
If cold temperature is the cause of ice and the cold temperature has always existed, why would the ice begin to exist 13,8B years ago? ….. why wouldn’t the ice exist since infinite past?
Heyo
Veteran Member
No, that is precisely the idea I think is the one that is in accord with most of the data and most of the theories. Everything else needs speculation.
Yeah, but it contradicts the idea that time began at the Big Bang.
If we agree that time began with the Big Bang, there is no difference between the very first moment and eternity. The singularity existed "since the beginning of time". In that aspect the Cosmic Egg is analogue to the "No Boundary" universe of Hartle & Hawking.
And, of course, your argument of "why exactly 13.8 billion years ago?" hits the Kalam's uncaused cause in just the same way.
McBell
Unbound
Replacing the most honest answer of "do not know" with "GodDidIt" does not actually answer anything.
It might make you feel good, but it does not lead to learning and merely adds a bunch more questions that the most honest answer is "do not know" that you would be far to ready to answer with "GodDidIt".
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok so if the universe (including time) began to exist at the big bang, it seems to me that there are only 2 options
1 ether something caused the universe (something that exists independently of the universe)
2 nothing caused the universe
I would argue that option 1 seems much more reasonable.
McBell
Unbound
Based on what?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Nice ChristineM. Very educational.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it, it started me on my cosmological explorations
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I wish I were good at math. That would have been a mind blowing study to get into.
I am pretty useless at maths. I can do what i needed for work, vectors and transformations, operator j and imaginary numbers. Only through years of practice, otherwise i am clueless with numbers
McBell
Unbound
I am not as bad at math as I let on.
Well, let me clarify that.
I am not terrible at the math I was taught.
This new core math crap they are currently teaching in the USA I have no clue about.
Whats core math?
McBell
Unbound
Why the Common Core makes easy math complicated
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People are up in arms over these Common Core math problems
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Core math? Basic arithmetic?
Heyo
Veteran Member
I would argue that option 1 is logically impossible or needs the assumption of a multiverse.
If time began to exist at the Big Bang there can't be a cause (in the traditional sense) as a cause precedes an effect. But when there is no preceding moment, there is no time for a cause.
If there is "something that exists independently of the universe", that is a parallel universe and if we allow for that, we have opened a can of worms. In this parallel universe we can't even be sure of the laws of nature as those have all broken down at the singularity. And what is more, if there is one parallel universe there could be infinite many other universes.
That's what I mean with "stopping to think at a convenient point". You think you solved the paradox by inserting one "uncaused cause" but you just defined it as uncaused. You can't show it and with the same legitimacy you introduced the additional entity, I can also.
leroy
Well-Known Member
With “universe” I mean all space time and everything in it……………so any bubble / or parallel world would be part of this definition,
You are assuming that the cause always precedes the effect. When in reality (at least arguably) you can have simultaneous cause and effect.
So ether
1 Simultanous cause and efect are possible
2 the universe came from nothign
option 1 seems more reasonable to me
If you claim infinite universes then “an infinite amount of time ago” universe “x” gave birth to universe “Y” both “X” and “y” would be simultaneous because they both occurred an infinite amount of time ago.
So if you open that can of worms, you are automatically admitting that simultaneous cause and effect are possible.,...
Well if the options are
1 uncause cause
2 nothing created the universe
3 infinite regress
Option 1 seems the most reasonable, at most it is counterintuitive, but I don’t see any logical not scientific evidence against this possibility
While the other 2 options are logically incoherent and inconsistent with current scientific evidence………..so option 1 is the best.
Granted, at this point you can postulate the existence of an entity like a “uncaused timeless string” (as in string theory)…….further argumentation would be needed to show that God is a better explanation than the “string”
Heyo
Veteran Member
You're contradicting yourself (and science), again.
The Big Bang is an event local to our universe. The nomenclature for the (speculative) multiverse including our universe is "cosmos".
Here you say definitely that there is something that is not part of our universe. So what is it now? In the Kalam it is said that the cause for the universe must be outside of our universe, so it argues for a multiverse. Are you still with the Kalam?
Or are you on the side of established science with a (single) universe that began at the Big Bang?
You have to discern those concepts in your mind and choose one.
If you choose the Big Bang, the Kalam is off the table and the discussion resolved.
If you choose the multiverse, we are speculating and my speculations are as good as yours i.e. only limited by logic.
Yazata
Active Member
Hi Link. Good opening post. I haven't read the whole thread, but it starts well. What follows is my initial reaction to your first post in this thread.
I've often seen that response and have even used it myself on more than one occasion. But I'm not exactly sure why "applying parts to the whole" is supposedly some kind of error. That implicit proposition still needs more argument by the "atheist philosophers" or by anyone who wants to argue as they do.
Yes, most of these cosmological arguments do seem to lead to infinite regresses.
I'm not sure how induction fits in your argument but I do think that you are on to something important. (I'm just responding to the thread's first post and you may have explained your point more fully in later posts that I haven't gotten to yet.)
I suspect that a better way to approach it is through the Principle of Sufficient Reason instead of through some first-cause argument.
Principle of sufficient reason - Wikipedia
This is essentially the idea that anything with a determinate nature requires some reason why it is the way it is and not some other way. This principle comes in a whole assortment of subtly different versions where it applies to existent states of affairs or to true propositions or to beliefs or whatever. But for the purposes of this post lets talk about existent states of affairs.
Imagine that an infinite endless chain of causes and effects actually exists such that there is no first cause or unmoved mover. (Some traditional cosmologies, such as that prevalent in ancient India, have imagined things this way.) While there isn't any initial first-cause in that picture simply by definition, one can certainly still ask why there is an in infinite chain of causes and effects instead of something else, or nothing at all.
So perhaps a cosmological argument might be restated this way --
1. The natural space-time-matter universe exists - Premise - it seems to be self evident and it seems to be assumed by various cosmological theories such as the 'Big Bang' theory.
2. For all X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient reason why X exists - Premise - the Principle of Sufficient Reason
3. God is the sufficient reason why the universe exists - Premise - by definition from traditional natural theology
4. There is a sufficient reason why the universe exists - lemma - from 1. and 2.
5. God exists - Conclusion - from 3. and 4.
It appears to be a valid logical proof for the existence of God. Of course, like all logical and mathematical proofs, it is only as strong as its premises.
That's where my own doubts about it arise.
A. I don't know how to further justify the Principle of Sufficient Reason (premise #2), though I'm very inclined to favor it. (Even the idea that it needs further justification might be assuming that it's true.) It seems to be a fundamental principle not only of science but of reason itself. If something happens, or if some proposition is true, then there's presumably some explanation for why events happened that way or for what makes the proposition true. Science spends much of its time trying to uncover those reasons. But if we are willing to announce that some propositions are true as givens with no justificatory account necessary, then that move could obviously be applied by the theists to belief in God just as easily.
B. There's what appears to be a theological problem with premise #3. If God is merely whatever the sufficient reason might be for why the physical universe exists, then all we seem to be left with is a metaphysical function as opposed to a religious deity suitable for human worship. This move seems to collapse God into something very much like the "laws of physics". We still need some account for why this sufficient reason is "Holy".
C. And there's the infinite regress problem such that
6. There is a sufficient reason why God exists - what looks like a theologically unwanted conclusion - from 2. and 5.
And that's a move that can be repeated forever by applying premise 2. to whatever our latest conclusion was... So we seem to end up not with God, but with an infinite succession of Supergods, and Supersupergods and Supersupersupergods.
I've often seen that response and have even used it myself on more than one occasion. But I'm not exactly sure why "applying parts to the whole" is supposedly some kind of error. That implicit proposition still needs more argument by the "atheist philosophers" or by anyone who wants to argue as they do.
Yes, most of these cosmological arguments do seem to lead to infinite regresses.
I'm not sure how induction fits in your argument but I do think that you are on to something important. (I'm just responding to the thread's first post and you may have explained your point more fully in later posts that I haven't gotten to yet.)
I suspect that a better way to approach it is through the Principle of Sufficient Reason instead of through some first-cause argument.
Principle of sufficient reason - Wikipedia
This is essentially the idea that anything with a determinate nature requires some reason why it is the way it is and not some other way. This principle comes in a whole assortment of subtly different versions where it applies to existent states of affairs or to true propositions or to beliefs or whatever. But for the purposes of this post lets talk about existent states of affairs.
Imagine that an infinite endless chain of causes and effects actually exists such that there is no first cause or unmoved mover. (Some traditional cosmologies, such as that prevalent in ancient India, have imagined things this way.) While there isn't any initial first-cause in that picture simply by definition, one can certainly still ask why there is an in infinite chain of causes and effects instead of something else, or nothing at all.
So perhaps a cosmological argument might be restated this way --
1. The natural space-time-matter universe exists - Premise - it seems to be self evident and it seems to be assumed by various cosmological theories such as the 'Big Bang' theory.
2. For all X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient reason why X exists - Premise - the Principle of Sufficient Reason
3. God is the sufficient reason why the universe exists - Premise - by definition from traditional natural theology
4. There is a sufficient reason why the universe exists - lemma - from 1. and 2.
5. God exists - Conclusion - from 3. and 4.
It appears to be a valid logical proof for the existence of God. Of course, like all logical and mathematical proofs, it is only as strong as its premises.
That's where my own doubts about it arise.
A. I don't know how to further justify the Principle of Sufficient Reason (premise #2), though I'm very inclined to favor it. (Even the idea that it needs further justification might be assuming that it's true.) It seems to be a fundamental principle not only of science but of reason itself. If something happens, or if some proposition is true, then there's presumably some explanation for why events happened that way or for what makes the proposition true. Science spends much of its time trying to uncover those reasons. But if we are willing to announce that some propositions are true as givens with no justificatory account necessary, then that move could obviously be applied by the theists to belief in God just as easily.
B. There's what appears to be a theological problem with premise #3. If God is merely whatever the sufficient reason might be for why the physical universe exists, then all we seem to be left with is a metaphysical function as opposed to a religious deity suitable for human worship. This move seems to collapse God into something very much like the "laws of physics". We still need some account for why this sufficient reason is "Holy".
C. And there's the infinite regress problem such that
6. There is a sufficient reason why God exists - what looks like a theologically unwanted conclusion - from 2. and 5.
And that's a move that can be repeated forever by applying premise 2. to whatever our latest conclusion was... So we seem to end up not with God, but with an infinite succession of Supergods, and Supersupergods and Supersupersupergods.
Last edited:
Hi Yazata,
I know the sufficient reason one, but I'm not discussing that one. I think infinite regression can be seen to have a cause. Let's say you split into 7 parts. 2-7 for sure all have previous chains as causes, even if the split is infinite each, why is 1 made an exception and seen to not need a cause? I think if you take away time and make infinite chain of each effect saying you need a previous cause for it to come to place, for example, a bunch things pressing down on each other, one thing will have to not have anything pressing down on it even in an infinite chain, or the effects will never take place. The same is true with time.
I hope you understand the induction I'm trying to show.