The Cosmological Argument

[Dan4reason]

Sufficient causes:
If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.


So the sufficient cause of something is a cause which if it exists, the result will also be there, however it is not the only way the result could have been brought about.

Excellent thought, i had totally missed the sufficient cause, my fault. here is my revised thought.

As for Material cause i agree with you there, it is the material required to construct something.

Now as for this entire universe:

The material cause has to be present and will include gravity and gases and time required to make a nebula as one complete material cause, the efficient cause and the sufficient cause will be the consciousness and be the source of change (GOD), and the efficient cause and sufficient cause need to exist as one complete cause (GOD),

Remember that the material cause is what the star is made out of, and the efficient cause is the way that the star was made. So in the case of the star the efficient cause is gravity. We don't have any evidence that a person makes stars. Using Newtonian physics, we know that matter will draw itself together given enough time, because each particle exerts an attractive force on other objects. You don't need God to get a large mass of particles to condense and condense until it turns into a star.

and if the material cause is eternal and infinite therefore the sufficient and effective cause will need to be eternal and infinite,

The material cause is infinite if the material a thing is made out of has existed forever. The Efficient cause is infinite if the person or process that made that thing has been around forever.

It is plausible that the material that makes up something has been around forever (eternal material cause), and then a person (temporal efficient cause) who is 15 then organizes that material to make a product. So your point is incorrect.

but if the material cause starts off from one point in time, that will mean that the effective cause will also have to start at that point,

It is plausible that a person who has been around forever (eternal efficent cause), used material that has been around 200 years (temporal material cause), to make something. So your point is incorrect.

but the sufficient cause will need to exist prior to both the other causes but has to be started in some point in time also.

Sometimes the sufficient cause is the efficient cause, so it does not need to exist prior to the efficient cause, the material cause can exist prior to the efficient cause, so the material cause can exist prior to the sufficient cause.

I do not see why you think the sufficient cause has to be started at some point in time.

so,
if the universe was created at the beginning and did not exist before, then it cant be eternal, as everything that is created needs to decay,

The universe will exist forever, it will just exist in a more primitive state with black holes everywhere and stars all died out. So a decaying universe can exist forever.

then that means the GOD who created the universe must have been created prior to the creation of the universe as the universe was created only after the god thought about it.

God may have found the material (which existed before him) to make the universe, and then used it to make the universe.

then when the universe decays the GOD will also decay that's if you scrutinise the biblical creation theory.

I don't see why that's true.

my scriptures tell me, that the raw material needed to form this universe existed for infinity and is unconscious, that requires a efficient and sufficient cause which is conscious, to construct and de-construct the universe into this form we have today.

How do you know that the material to make the universe existed for infinity? I hope you realise unconscious things can also be efficient causes too.

Your post was very deep and took a lot of though to review. I hope my review was not too long and hopefully I didn't get any of the definitions wrong.

 

[cottage]

The Cosmological Argument (and every other inferential argument) is undeniably dependent upon the world; God cannot logically exist without the world since that is where the belief begins. The world exists and, it is said, so must God. But the only tenuous link between the concept of God and the world is causality. Now, there is a major problem with this. We don’t actually know what causation is or precisely how it works, but what we do know, however, is that there is no contradiction implied in denying it altogether. So it cannot be argued that God is known by his creative powers because that implies that causality exists outside experience, but the phenomenon of causation is a feature of the world and it cannot be both necessary and worldly. In other words God cannot be God if he is not the Creator, and yet in order to be the omnipotent Creator he is absolutely dependent upon causation, which is a contingent feature of the physical world. This demonstrates the problem of inferring the existence of other worlds (God), while expecting to use phenomena from the actual world. But if the same causal phenomena are necessary then God cannot work without them! And so the absurdity we arrive at is that God’s omnipotence and creative ability is causation dependent, he cannot be the former without the latter, and the latter (the denial of which invites no contradiction) means that he cannot be the former! On this account neither the physical world nor God need exist. And yet the physical world does exist! So to argue that this contingent reality, the existence of the universe, must be dependent upon a further contingent existence or reality for its cause is plainly an unjustified assertion, since causality is just experience, a non-necessary association of two events and part of the reality from which the advocate’s argument must begin!

 

[Willamena]

I don't know if anything does or does not. We cannot assume either way.

Yes Yes, we can.

 

[Dan4reason]

Yes Yes, we can.

We can assume either way? Do you know something about cosmology I don't?

 

[Willamena]

We can assume either way? Do you know something about cosmology I don't?

No, just something about nothing.

Nothing cannot be "a reality we cannot grasp," because that would be something.

 

[1137]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

The contingency argument, I find, really says the same thing yet is more convincing. I will lay it out here:

Main Argument
1. All beings are either necessary or contingent.
2. Not all beings can be contingent.
Therefore: there is a necessary being.
3. A god is the most likely necessary being.
Therefore: god exists.

Argument for Premise 1
1.' Every being must be necessary (explained in terms of itself), contingent (explained in terms of another thing), or unexplained (without explanation).
2.' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (Principle of Sufficient Reason).
Therefore: every being is either necessary or contingent.

Argument for Premise 2
1.'' If every being is contingent, there is no explanation for the series of contingencies.
2.'' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (PSR)
Therefore: not all beings are contingent.



Now, you can reject many of these premises. First, you could argue that the necessary being is matter / energy, thus making a god obsolete. However, if matter / energy has always been around, you must accept that the universe is infinite in age. You could also argue brute facts: either that the infinite series of contingencies is a brute fact, or the start of the universe is a brute fact.

So, here are your options:
1. There is a necessary being, and it is god.
2. There is a necessary "being", and it is matter / energy.
3. There is a necessary being, but it is an unknown.
4. The universe being infinitely old is a brute fact.
5. The big bang is a brute fact.

I tell you right now, people do not like brute facts. And, if you accept the PSR, you cannot have brute facts.

 

[Viker]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:

I am not convinced this is true. I can't help but come to the conclusion that something has always been here. Even if the present state is radically different than it's previous.

(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

There isn't any indication that the cause of the present state of the universe is God. The identity, character and essence of God has not been identified and then linked to the cause. Therefore, the cause is not qualified as God nor could a creative force behind the cause be qualified. A creator has not been identified and not qualified as God. In all likelihood, God does not exist.

Everything appears to a have cause but not every cause has a sentient force behind it. Like rain, etc.

 

[Willamena]

First, you could argue that the necessary being is matter / energy, thus making a god obsolete.

Isn't matter/energy adequately explained by a contingent being?

 

[Dan4reason]

The contingency argument, I find, really says the same thing yet is more convincing. I will lay it out here:

Main Argument
1. All beings are either necessary or contingent.
2. Not all beings can be contingent.
Therefore: there is a necessary being.
3. A god is the most likely necessary being.
Therefore: god exists.

Argument for Premise 1
1.' Every being must be necessary (explained in terms of itself), contingent (explained in terms of another thing), or unexplained (without explanation).
2.' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (Principle of Sufficient Reason).
Therefore: every being is either necessary or contingent.
Argument for Premise 2
1.'' If every being is contingent, there is no explanation for the series of contingencies.
2.'' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (PSR)
Therefore: not all beings are contingent.



Now, you can reject many of these premises. First, you could argue that the necessary being is matter / energy, thus making a god obsolete. However, if matter / energy has always been around, you must accept that the universe is infinite in age. You could also argue brute facts: either that the infinite series of contingencies is a brute fact, or the start of the universe is a brute fact.

What if this universe is not all there is. What if there are things outside this universe that are timeless and can cause this universe to exist? So why do we need God for?

So, here are your options:
1. There is a necessary being, and it is god.

That is a possibility.

2. There is a necessary "being", and it is matter / energy.

That is another possibility.

3. There is a necessary being, but it is an unknown.

That is a likely possibility.

4. The universe being infinitely old is a brute fact.

I am sceptical of that.

5. The big bang is a brute fact.

I tell you right now, people do not like brute facts. And, if you accept the PSR, you cannot have brute facts.

I think the big bang had a cause.

So all this doesn't really prove that God made the universe, it shows only that a necessary thing made the universe.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The Cosmological Argument (and every other inferential argument) is undeniably dependent upon the world; God cannot logically exist without the world since that is where the belief begins. The world exists and, it is said, so must God. But the only tenuous link between the concept of God and the world is causality. Now, there is a major problem with this. We don’t actually know what causation is or precisely how it works, but what we do know, however, is that there is no contradiction implied in denying it altogether. So it cannot be argued that God is known by his creative powers because that implies that causality exists outside experience, but the phenomenon of causation is a feature of the world and it cannot be both necessary and worldly. In other words God cannot be God if he is not the Creator, and yet in order to be the omnipotent Creator he is absolutely dependent upon causation, which is a contingent feature of the physical world. This demonstrates the problem of inferring the existence of other worlds (God), while expecting to use phenomena from the actual world. But if the same causal phenomena are necessary then God cannot work without them! And so the absurdity we arrive at is that God’s omnipotence and creative ability is causation dependent, he cannot be the former without the latter, and the latter (the denial of which invites no contradiction) means that he cannot be the former! On this account neither the physical world nor God need exist. And yet the physical world does exist! So to argue that this contingent reality, the existence of the universe, must be dependent upon a further contingent existence or reality for its cause is plainly an unjustified assertion, since causality is just experience, a non-necessary association of two events and part of the reality from which the advocate’s argument must begin!

:clap

 

[javajo]

How can there be a "before" if there was no time?

I believe God is outside the constraints of time that we are in. Before God said, "Let there be light!" God existed. The Bible says hes is "from everlasting" and "from everlasting to everlasting" and such. We humans just don't know everything, eh?

Or maybe the rate at which it is using up its work slows down over time and approaches, however I doubt that this universe has been around for an infinite amount of time. I am not sure if those rules work outside the universe, outside space time, and the world of matter.

According to those 2 laws (of thermodynamics) it could not have been around for an infinite amount of time so it had to have a beginning, and therefore, a cause. We are finding amazing design in the universe, which, I believe shows forth a wise creator.

What if something else outside this universe and time created this universe?

Bingo!

Our perceptions and experience are limited to space-time, so I would agree with you that it is pointless to discuss whether anything exists outside this sphere or not, as we could never know, unless you accept the claims of mystics, which are highly subjective to begin with.

I don't think its pointless. It is important to know whether or not there is a God and what are his attributes and how should we live in light of this, etc. Beside the mystics, in his Word, God gave many precise, detailed prophecies which came true in real history. You won't find such exact prophecies given and fulfilled in any other work. This is great evidence (to me) of God. I also believe we are made in the image of God (you won't find any chimps reading this), and we have the wonder and great design and fine balance of creation and we have our conscience, which shows forth a creator to those who honestly and diligently search for him (not saying those who do not believe are dishonest, just that I believe he can be found if we seek him).

No, just something about nothing.

Nothing cannot be "a reality we cannot grasp," because that would be something.

I know a little about everything but not a whole lot about any (one) thing.

 

[PolyHedral]

I believe God is outside the constraints of time that we are in. Before God said, "Let there be light!" God existed. The Bible says hes is "from everlasting" and "from everlasting to everlasting" and such. We humans just don't know everything, eh?

But what it does it even mean to say something existed "before" time?

According to those 2 laws (of thermodynamics) it could not have been around for an infinite amount of time so it had to have a beginning, and therefore, a cause. We are finding amazing design in the universe, which, I believe shows forth a wise creator.

I've highligted the non-sequitor.

 

[Me Myself]

According to those 2 laws (of thermodynamics) it could not have been around for an infinite amount of time so it had to have a beginning, and therefore, a cause. We are finding amazing design in the universe, which, I believe shows forth a wise creator.

The problem is that this laws don´t talk about energy, they talk about what is formed by energy.

So, energy might be eternal, the things it forms are not eternal. If there is entrophy it may well also end and then start as a different creative proccess.

 

[javajo]

Hi java,

This isn't a correct interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics -- though it's close. The entropic gradient does overall always point the same direction, but thermodynamic processes are entirely probablistic. There is a non-zero probability that even a system in thermodynamic equilibrium will have local entropic decreases through sheer chance alone. In a system the size of the megaverse (e.g., the universe including that which is farther than the limits of the visible universe) it's easily the case that a pocket of decreased entropy could be the size of the visible universe; especially if it's expanding.

Furthermore, this could go on forever (though indeed, with long lapses in between); and more than that, given infinite time, the odds approach complete certainty that it will happen.

Also, given infinite time, certain systems can reset to a state very similar to their original state in a phenomenon known as Poincare Recurrence:

Since the first infinite sum can be arbitrarily small, there exist intervals for T in relation to delta^2 / 2:

The interval can be arbitrarily small; and so the state of the system returns arbitrarily close to the original state of the system infinitely often without violating thermodynamics. That's assuming the system exists eternally and the phase states of the system don't intersect.

Edit: The maths aren't required to understand the argument, they're there for any that want to follow them. Explanation of the symbols and relation to the eigenstates is in the link provided.

Hi Meow Mix, thanks for your reply. I see what you are saying and it actually makes sense, I think. I don't know that this current universe could reset, but a new one might from my belief that there will be a new heaven and earth. While the equation does not break the 2 laws, what I would imagine if the universe existed forever, and ignoring the Poincare Reccurance, what would have happened is that since there is a certain limited amount of mass energy, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, it would already have exhausted all usable energy and reached heat death. So, all the radioactive atoms would have decayed, the whole universe would be the same temperature, and no more work would be possible. It seems (to me) the universe started with a lot of energy and is now running down. Even if we are in one of those pockets, eventually, given forever, the energy available for work would run down. I'm not saying that your Reccurance cannot happen, I just don't know that it IS happening but I don't know much on the subject, so my ideas are pretty simple and straightforward. If I get a chance I'll check it out more in depth, because it is very interesting and I thank you for sharing that. Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[shawn001]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

quite a few errors actually, not that one does or does not exist, but the reasoning you have is off.


[youtube]P-jQUHUF1MU[/youtube]
Stephen Hawking: Does God Exist? - YouTube

 

[shawn001]

So there is EXACTLY equal positive energy and negative energy in the universe and they cancel each other out to exactly 0.

The universe is expanding right now faster then light.

There are not many cosmologist left who believe we are the only universe.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Are there any errors in this reasoning?

What caused God?

 

[shawn001]

The oldest light in the universe.

February 11, 2003

NASA RELEASES STUNNING IMAGES OF OUR INFANT UNIVERSE

NASA today released the best "baby picture" of the Universe ever taken; the image contains such stunning detail that it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years.

Scientists using NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), during a sweeping 12-month observation of the entire sky, captured the new cosmic portrait, capturing the afterglow of the big bang, called the cosmic microwave background.

"We've captured the infant universe in sharp focus, and from this portrait we can now describe the universe with unprecedented accuracy," said Dr. Charles L. Bennett of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt Md., and the WMAP Principal Investigator. "The data are solid, a real gold mine," he said.

One of the biggest surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected.

In addition, the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years old, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error.

The WMAP team found that the big bang and Inflation theories continue to ring true. The contents of the universe include 4 percent atoms (ordinary matter), 23 percent of an unknown type of dark matter, and 73 percent of a mysterious dark energy. The new measurements even shed light on the nature of the dark energy, which acts as a sort of an anti-gravity.

"These numbers represent a milestone in how we view our universe," said Dr. Anne Kinney, NASA director for astronomy and physics. "This is a true turning point for cosmology."

The light we see today, as the cosmic microwave background, has traveled over 13 billion years to reach us. Within this light are infinitesimal patterns that mark the seeds of what later grew into clusters of galaxies and the vast structure we see all around us.

Patterns in the big bang afterglow were frozen in place only 380,000 years after the big bang, a number nailed down by this latest observation. These patterns are tiny temperature differences within this extraordinarily evenly dispersed microwave light bathing the universe, which now averages a frigid 2.73 degrees above absolute zero temperature. WMAP resolves slight temperature fluctuations, which vary by only millionths of a degree.

Theories about the evolution of the universe make specific predictions about the extent of these temperature patterns. Like a detective, the WMAP team compared the unique "fingerprint" of patterns imprinted on this ancient light with fingerprints predicted by various cosmic theories and found a match.

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

 

[javajo]

But what it does it even mean to say something existed "before" time?

Time as we know it. We measure time because we are on a rotating earth which is rotating around the sun so we have 24 hr. days, hours, minutes, seconds, and we have years, months and weeks because of this. I believe God is not on earth, so in a sense he is outside of time. Time, like eternity past or eternity future and what not is not something we mere humans can fully grasp right now. The Bible describes God as being from everlasting. I think when he made light and set the world in motion and then made the sun, time as we know it began.

I've highligted the non-sequitor.

That is not a non sequitur. It is not a disputed statement. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. I might add what I said in an earlier post, is that Einstein said time is linked to matter and space, so if God created everything, he also created time.

The problem is that this laws don´t talk about energy, they talk about what is formed by energy.

So, energy might be eternal, the things it forms are not eternal. If there is entrophy it may well also end and then start as a different creative proccess.

No the atoms would have decayed, nothing can happen at all.

 

[javajo]

What caused God?

Only something that had a beginning requires a cause. God has always been, he is from everlasting.