What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[darkskies]

Kalam states that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Correct. My bad.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Lets say a person makes an argument like the cosmological argument for his personal deduction to affirm God, how would an atheist approach a falsification of it?

Did you mean a rebuttal? None needed. Claims that gods exist aren't scientific, hence not falsifiable, which is why they can be dismissed without rebuttal.

So how will you go about proving that God, if existing, has to have been created.

No need. If you are willing to accept that something can exist without being created, what do we need gods for?

Furthermore, the cosmological argument, which presumes that everything that exists had a beginning, has already excluded the possibility of an eternal, timeless, uncaused deity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Did you mean a rebuttal? None needed. Claims that gods exist aren't scientific, hence not falsifiable, which is why they can be dismissed without rebuttal.
...

In science, yes. But not in philosophy in the same way as science. And the cosmological argument is not science, it is philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, the Kalam cosmological argument states;

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

1. Can be falsified if something is found to come into existence without a cause. I'm open to correction on this, but I think someone with a detailed knowledge of quantum physics like @Polymath257 could point out uncaused events at the quantum level.

And, in fact, by any classical definition, most quantum events are not caused.

A LOT of care is required to precisely define what it means to be 'caused'. It isn't an easy thing and is usually glossed over in these discussions.

2. Can be falsified i think if the universe had no beginning. Time may have began with the early stages of the universe, thus we cannot say there was a time the universe did not exist.

I'm not sure about point number 2, because it is difficult for me to grasp what it means for time to be a product of the universe.

The concept of 'having a beginning' is another that needs a lot of clarification.

It usually implies that there is a time before the thing existed and then a later time when it did.

But, and this is crucial, TIME IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE.

This is a basic principle of modern cosmology. Time is one aspect of spacetime. It is part of the geometry of the universe.

But that means that whenever there has been time, the universe has also existed.

In other words, even if time only goes finitely far into the past (which is a possibility), the phrase 'begins to exist' does not apply to the universe as a whole. In fact, it does not even apply to time, which is part of the universe.

But, I would go further. Causality as we know it requires time. The causes of events happen prior to the effects *in time*.

And that means that time itself *cannot* have a cause. And, again, since time is part of the universe, that means that the universe cannot have a cause.

But, I can go further:

1. Everything that has a cause has a cause within the universe.
2. The universe does not have a cause within the universe.
3. Therefore, the universe has no cause.

This set of axioms if *far* better supported by the facts we know about the universe. And it shows exactly the opposite conclusion as the Kalam argument.

Finally, even if ALL of this were false, the Kalam argument, even if it were valid, *at most* shows that there is a cause for the universe. It does NOT show that cause is intelligent, has agency, is all powerful, or any other of the attributes usually associated with the Abrahamic deity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Did you mean a rebuttal? None needed. Claims that gods exist aren't scientific, hence not falsifiable, which is why they can be dismissed without rebuttal ... Furthermore, the cosmological argument, which presumes that everything that exists had a beginning, has already excluded the possibility of an eternal, timeless, uncaused deity.

In science, yes. But not in philosophy in the same way as science. And the cosmological argument is not science, it is philosophy.

He asked how the claim would be falsified, and I answered that the claim is not scientific, so it cannot be falsified. Do you disagree?

Now regarding rebuttal, the cosmological argument has already been rebutted here as well as elsewhere. It's basic fallacy is the assumption that the laws of the universe apply to everything but this alleged, necessary creator god - special pleading. Do you disagree with that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He asked how the claim would be falsified, and I answered that the claim is not scientific, so it cannot be falsified. Do you disagree?

Now regarding rebuttal, the cosmological argument has already been rebutted here as well as elsewhere. It's basic fallacy is the assumption that the laws of the universe apply to everything but this alleged, necessary creator god - special pleading. Do you disagree with that?

Yeah, I disagree, because falsification is not limited to science, though it is normally used with science.

Th OP asked: What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

Science is one, but not the only one.

 

[Polymath257]

One problem is that when you follow this regression backwards you eventually come to, "Well who created god" and then the apologist usually blusters and says something like, "Well, god was always there"
ie. Special pleading = FAIL

That's why the phrase 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'. The original version was 'everything has a cause', but that lead to difficulties when applied to God, so the argument was changed.

Of course, that begs the question of exactly what it means to be 'caused' and what conditions are required for causality to apply.

Aristotle has four basic types of cause. For him, the *shape* of something was a cause (the formal cause). And his 'ultimate cause' requires a type of time reversed causality. Most people today reject those as actually being causes.

But we can go further. To say that 'A' causes 'B' means that 'A' in some way brings 'B' into existence. But how does that happen? Clearly, 'A' has some properties, and hose properties dynamically act in such a way that 'B' happens.

But that 'dynamical action' is exactly what is described by the laws of physics. In other words, that action is the action of natural laws on the properties that 'A' has.

But this means that causality is part of the *natural laws* and thereby is an aspect *of* the universe, not an aspect that give rise to the universe.

Once again, the universe as a whole, *even if time is finite*, cannot have a cause because causes are within time and thereby part of the universe.

Anyway, that's how I see it. If anyone can give a treatment of causality that avoids this issue, I would love to see it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Finally, even if ALL of this were false, the Kalam argument, even if it were valid, *at most* shows that there is a cause for the universe. It does NOT show that cause is intelligent, has agency, is all powerful, or any other of the attributes usually associated with the Abrahamic deity.

Well, I would do even if it were valid and sound, unless you can prove that validity is always sound.

 

[firedragon]

Did you mean a rebuttal?

No.

No need.

Nice. Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Anyway, that's how I see it. If anyone can give a treatment of causality that avoids this issue, I would love to see it.

Well, that means that the explanation of the universe includes you. That is in effect methodological solipsism. Now if you want to avoid it, try seeing without seeing.

 

[We Never Know]

That's why the phrase 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'. The original version was 'everything has a cause', but that lead to difficulties when applied to God, so the argument was changed.

Of course, that begs the question of exactly what it means to be 'caused' and what conditions are required for causality to apply.

Aristotle has four basic types of cause. For him, the *shape* of something was a cause (the formal cause). And his 'ultimate cause' requires a type of time reversed causality. Most people today reject those as actually being causes.

But we can go further. To say that 'A' causes 'B' means that 'A' in some way brings 'B' into existence. But how does that happen? Clearly, 'A' has some properties, and hose properties dynamically act in such a way that 'B' happens.

But that 'dynamical action' is exactly what is described by the laws of physics. In other words, that action is the action of natural laws on the properties that 'A' has.

But this means that causality is part of the *natural laws* and thereby is an aspect *of* the universe, not an aspect that give rise to the universe.

Once again, the universe as a whole, *even if time is finite*, cannot have a cause because causes are within time and thereby part of the universe.

Anyway, that's how I see it. If anyone can give a treatment of causality that avoids this issue, I would love to see it.

Yet the singularity existed before the universe, before natural laws and before time.
And before time, natural laws or the universe existed, for some reason this singularity rapidly heated and expanded.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet the singularity existed before the universe, before natural laws and before time.
And before time, natural laws or the universe existed, for some reason this singularity rapidly heated and expanded.

We don't know that the singularity existed. That is a belief, some scientists have based on some assumptions, that we are not allowed to doubt.

 

[Polymath257]

Yet the singularity existed before the universe, before natural laws and before time.

That is a misunderstanding.

The singularity is simply a description of the idea that time cannot be extended further back.

1And before time, natural laws or the universe existed, for some reason this singularity rapidly heated and expanded.

See above. This is a misunderstanding of what it means to be a singularity.

For example, the south pole is a coordinate singularity for the latitude and longitude system on the Earth: saying it is a singularity means you cannot extend latitude farther south.

 

[firedragon]

The proposition of causation is not about existence. It's about the material universe.

Okay. So "material universe".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is a misunderstanding.

The singularity is simply a description of the idea that time cannot be extended further back.
...

Yeah, the idea.

 

[Polymath257]

We don't know that the singularity existed. That is a belief, some scientists have based on some assumptions, that we are not allowed to doubt.

On the contrary, many scientists *do* doubt it.

The notion of a singularity is based on general relativity. the math of that description forces singularities to exist.

But, it is possible, even likely, that quantum effects 'smooth over' the singularities. In that case, there would be no singularity: everything would be 'smooth', not 'cuspy'.

 

[We Never Know]

That is a misunderstanding.

The singularity is simply a description of the idea that time cannot be extended further back.



See above. This is a misunderstanding of what it means to be a singularity.

For example, the south pole is a coordinate singularity for the latitude and longitude system on the Earth: saying it is a singularity means you cannot extend latitude farther south.

South is a man made conception. Not a actual physical thing or place.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On the contrary, many scientists *do* doubt it.

The notion of a singularity is based on general relativity. the math of that description forces singularities to exist.

But, it is possible, even likely, that quantum effects 'smooth over' the singularities. In that case, there would be no singularity: everything would be 'smooth', not 'cuspy'.

You are good at this, because you are not that dogmatic in how you view your ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

South is a man made conception. Not a actual physical thing or place.

The rule of actual physical things is a man made concept.

 

[Polymath257]

South is a man made conception. Not a actual physical thing or place.

Not completely true, although we are getting to the difference between a coordinate singularity and a geometric one. Geometric singularities are 'not smooth', but are 'cuspy'.