Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

[BilliardsBall]

You and your metaphysics, again.

Metaphysics is a BS philosophy, because it is frequently misused and misunderstood, especially when people like yourself try to mix it with empirical/experimental science, or with maths.

Experimental science do use maths, but as a useful tools, not as “eternal” law, and it is not a “be all solution”. Maths don’t have all the answers.

In the real world, nothing is perfect, and reality can change.

Science required real world information, and that mean observations, eg finding evidences in the field or performing “x-number of” experiments or tests in the lab.

Newton’s theory on mechanism, of motion, gravity and forces, it works fine, in the real world, and on day-to-day basis, with the equations and formulas.

However it is not perfect, especially when it concern the bodies outside of our Solar System, and even outside of our galaxy. The classical Newtonian theory of gravity is insufficient and updating, and Einstein made those changes, in which General Relativity give us understanding of the universe outside of Local Group.

It is with Einstein’s field equations of General Relativity and the FLRW metric (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric), that scientists were able to determine the universe have been expanding since the “Big Bang”, mathematically.

But it wasn’t the maths alone that change the Big Bang from “hypothesis” to a fully fledged “scientific theory”; no, it was the evidences that determine:

1. The observing of galaxies moving away from each other, was determined by the wavelength of electromagnetic appear “redshifted”. It was predicted by Howard Percy Robertson, in 1924-25, and discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929.
2. And the evidence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which was predicted in 1948, by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, and discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964. More detailed mapping of CMBR, came from the WMAP and the Planck missions.

Meaning the Newtonian gravity don’t apply in the study of deep space and the universe.

Newtonian gravity and mechanism also don’t work with particles, smaller than protons, which is where Quantum Mechanics come in.

There are lot of mathematical equations within Quantum Physics, but it is the testable “evidences” that make it real, not just the maths.

If the Newton’s theory on gravity (and its maths) was eternal, then it should have applied to massive astronomical bodies (eg stars, galaxies, etc), or to objects smaller than the hadron particles (eg smaller than protons or neutrons, like quarks, leptons, bosons, etc)...

...well, it doesn’t.

Sometimes maths work, but sometimes they don’t.

If maths were perfect, and work every single time, then there would only be constants, no variables.

But the world is perfect, nor are every equations.

I never said "math has all the answers" as you wrote above, although I absolutely would say that non-Newtonian physics is always thought about by physicists using LOGIC. Physicists don't stop being careful or logical when studying quantum physics and etc. And even when objects seem to behave in non-Newtonian ways and non-intuitive ways, people think through the issues using logic.

My point is, and I'm sorry if it hasn't been clear yet, so I'll rephrase...

Science cannot prove anything without first holding as true:

* Truth exists
* Falsity exists
* Things may be proven or disproven

Thus, science sits atop logic (and math, too, if you like).

Logic and math are good tools as you wrote. They also reveal proofs, confirm theories, and show men truth. To disagree with this is illogical.

Skeptics tell me that only physical, empirical, measurable, falsifiable things exist.

Are math and logic physical (have mass or weight)? No
Are they empirically assessed? No
Can you measure math and logic using empirical tools? No
Can you falsify math and logic and disprove them? No, because to disprove logic, you must first assert "A thing [logic] cannot be both false and true simultaneously, and may be proven false or proven true", which is, of course, asserting the logic law of noncontradiction.

My point is simple, as I (hope) you realize:

Since the definition of metaphysics includes "of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses", once you admit math and logic are EXACTLY that definition, REAL and TRUE but not perceptible to the senses, they cannot be seen, handled, tasted, touched, measured, affected by gravity, etc. ...

... Once we agree to the obvious, axiomatic, logical truth that math and logic are metaphysical.

We can see if other metaphysical things, even living beings, exist.

 

[gnostic]

Logic and math are good tools as you wrote. They also reveal proofs, confirm theories, and show men truth.

Maths and logic can prove a possible premise with logical or mathematical statements, like solving complex equations, but it doesn’t confirm theories.

Only evidences, verified by other evidences, can confirm any theory.

Even after all the years you have been here, you still don’t understand what evidences are for.

Forget it. I am done with you, explaining something that you cannot possibly learn, even if you were to live another hundred years.

 

[viole]

Many versions of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God go something like this.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

It's an almost trivially simple argument, and it is certainly valid. Whether it is sound or not depends on the truth value of each premise, and the premises certainly are debatable. But, that is not my objection to the argument. In this case, for the sake of argument, I will grant that the argument is sound, and that each premise is true thus making the conclusion true. Even if this is the case, using it as an argument for the existence of God (or even worse, a specific God concept) fails to work. Suppose the universe does have a cause. There are many possibilities for its cause other than god. Maybe it's an alien kid's science experiment. Maybe it's the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself. Maybe a metaphysical dragon from another universe barfed it up. Who knows? But, to go from "the universe had a cause" to "the God of Religion X must exist" is a laughably illogical leap. Yet, many supposed apologists of major religions, particularly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continue to use this argument, despite how weak it is. It never cease to amaze me that people still fall for this pathetically weak argument....

The only problem I have with this argument is to decide which strategy to use to kill it. There are so many.

Let's make a list, that might not be exhaustive.

1) Some things begin to exists without a clear cause. See virtual particles in QM.
2) Properties of the contained cannot be extended to properties of the container. A box full of red balls is not necessarily red.
3) Things have beginnings only within Universes with low entropy (and a time arrow). Extensions to the whole Universe are meaningless.
4) The Universe has no beginning. Our bubble could only be a bubble generated by other bubbles, recursively.
5) There is not such a thing as beginning or evolution of the Universe. Spacetime blocks do not begin to exist.
6) At microscopic scales there is no difference between causes and effects. We could equally say that the Universe is the cause and God the effect, unless we beg the question.

But, as you noticed, its main weakness is that it seems useless. For, if I believed in Jesus or Allah, then I would be rational only if I had enough evidence that justifies my belief in Jesus or Allah. Namely, if I had evidence of empty tombs, resurrections, 1st century human rockets to heaven, evidence of winged horses taking off to heaven, etc.

But if I had that, why on earth would I spend my time trying to defend complicated sophisms like the cosmological, ontological, or teleological arguments at all? It would be like finding abstract arguments for the existence of cars, when all I have to do is to show my Audi.

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You may ask: Who created God? God is uncreated by definition. We take God as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. This is much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer.

Is that an example of the kind of answer that religion offer, but that atheists lack?

If so, what do you think you just answered? How is that idea of use whether true or false?

As for answers, the answers one needs are those that help him navigate life successfully as he defines successful living. I am a happy person content with his lot in life and glad to be alive. Those have been answers enough.

Those answers didn't come from any religion or holy book.

By logic, everyone agrees with the fact that there was something Eternal which gave life to this universe and its inhabitants. We believe that the Eternal is everlasting and intelligent being and we call Him God.

Everybody agrees? I don't agree with that.

I think that your logic has left your list of candidate hypotheses for the universe too short. Here's my list. Yours appears to be items [4] and [6] only, or only item [6] :

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

None of us has any way to rule any of these in or out.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Maths and logic can prove a possible premise with logical or mathematical statements, like solving complex equations, but it doesn’t confirm theories.

Only evidences, verified by other evidences, can confirm any theory.

Even after all the years you have been here, you still don’t understand what evidences are for.

Forget it. I am done with you, explaining something that you cannot possibly learn, even if you were to live another hundred years.

I never wrote, never, that "math and logic confirm theories in science".

What I wrote is "science cannot exist without presupposed axioms, including how proofs work, via math and logic." Science cannot prove or even hope that anything is true or false until we (first!) understand definitions of "true" and "false" from the rules of logic.

Respectfully, understand what I write before you use (another) excuse to disagree, please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go back one post of yours, and you'll see what I was saying. You claimed no logic is involved in exploring creation science, then showed with your post you yourself felt you've successfully used logic to debunk it, which further makes creation science claims falsifiable, if you would simply admit what you wrote.

No, that is not what I said. This is what I correctly pointed out:

"That is pretty much true for all creationists. Sooner or later they all have to abandon science, logic and reason."

And what I have pointed out time after time is that creationists no longer make falsifiable tests since any such claims have been debunked. What is regularly debunked of creationists now are their false attacks on evolution. That is still not "creation science". There is no such thing as creation science, at least to my knowledge. If there is then you should be able to find a testable idea of theirs that has not been refuted yet. By the way, if all of one's claims have been refuted then that person does not have "science" either. One needs a concept that has survived testing.

There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution. There are mountains of evidence supporting creation. What shall we do?

No, there is no scientific evidence supporting creationism. To have scientific evidence that supports creationism one needs a testable hypothesis that has not been refuted yet. Again if there was such a concept that is supported by mountains of evidence and has not been refuted finding it should be a piece of cake for you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A dozen highly specific things must evolve to bring animals to whales in 43 million years.

And there is reason to believe in intelligent design, regardless of if you feel creation is not falsifiable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A dozen highly specific things must evolve to bring animals to whales in 43 million years.

How many specific things have to happen just right for a god to happen?

Also, have you heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy? Because it's what you're doing right now.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia

Just because something happened doesn't mean it was some sort of intended consequence.

And there is reason to believe in intelligent design, regardless of if you feel creation is not falsifiable.

News to me. What reason?

 

[ChristineM]

A dozen highly specific things must evolve to bring animals to whales in 43 million years.

And there is reason to believe in intelligent design, regardless of if you feel creation is not falsifiable.

Please list them.

What reason is that? Because you say so...ok.

 

[Apologes]

I can't help but notice that every time a topic on the Kalam arises there is always a huge number of people dismissing it as "laughably illogical" or "a pathetically weak argument" or "a cheap apologist trick" or any other condescending name while they themselves can't get the argument straight to begin with. OP is a good example as his main objection to the argument is that the 3 presented premises don't lead us to a theistic conclusion. Worse yet, there is an additional complaint that they do not lead us to a particular theism (maybe the Christian or Muslim kind).

In making such comments one shows clear signs of not having researched the argument seriously. First of all, the 3 premises listed in the OP aren't even the complete Kalam argument. All they aim to establish is that the universe has a cause for it's existence. Then the second part of the argument kicks in as some in this thread have noted:

4) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists
5) Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists.

It is the conclusion that the first two premises produce together with the above two premises that give a conclusion of theistic significance. It is clear then, that the objection that the argument doesn't (even if sound) establish the truth of theism fails.

Second, the objection that the argument doesn't lead us to any particular God isn't even worthy of being called an objection as the proponent of the Kalam will gladly agree with that statement. The Kalam does not prove any particular God. It's purpose is to simply establish a broad form of classical theism in which we would have a transcendent personal creator of the universe who is himself uncreated. The complaint, therefore misses the point.

Third, why do "some supposed apologists" use the argument when it doesn't lead to their desired God (with some of the people here singling out William Lane Craig in particular, but more on that in a moment)? I cannot speak for any apologist out there (I'm sure there are plenty of bad apologists who understand the argument just as poorly as the OP) but all respectable ones will use the Kalam as just one argument in a greater cumulative case that gradually gets them to their particular God. In such a case the Kalam argument would establish the existence of a transcendent creator, a moral argument of some sort would be used to establish the moral perfection of that creator and then an argument building on top of the established existence of a transcendent all-loving God would be used to argue for a particular thing that would prove the apologist's desired God (eg. an argument for the resurrection of Jesus).

Rather than jumping from deism to a particular theism, a sensible apologist will build his case slowly, getting from deism to a particular theism in a series of steps (different arguments of Natural Theology). It is disingenuous, then to present any one of these argument as having for it's purpose to establish the entire case for any specific religion.

Speaking of disingenuity, I want to talk about my last point and that is the disdain a lot of people here seem to have for the project of Natural Theology in general and/or certain proponents of it in particular. One name that often gets a lot of condescension it's way is the mentioned William Lane Craig. The man holds two doctorates, is one of the leading philosophers of religion, one of the most influential philosophers in recent years, has a massive body of work behind him and is generally well-respected among academic circles doing collaborations with famous atheist philosophers who themselves compliment him, with even some pop-atheist "superstars" like Hitchens and Harriss acknowledging him as formidable.

How sad it is then to frequently see laypeople who haven't even bothered to look at any of his articles (published in world-renowned journals mind you) talk trash about him and present him as merely "a supposed apologist" and his arguments (which are taken very seriously and have survived far more complex and thought-out objections than most of the things we've seen in this thread) "pathetically weak". It is one thing to be unconvinced by a certain argument, but for the sake of intellectual honesty we ought to give credit where credit is due and even on the occasion that the Kalam is faulty one could still acknowledge that it takes a lot to defeat it and that it is (contrary to what many ignorant people think) a part of a project that has received great deal of attention in the academia and should be approached seriously.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you are saying that math is a human construct? I thought we can use math and logic to look backwards in time at cosmology or forwards, to predict the paths of heavenly bodies as they travel through spacetime.

I find rather that math and logic are always true for all time, and thus, pre-existent before science and eternal. You've told me a lot about the nature of proof, theory, hypotheses, etc. but all of that is based on "true" and "false" and true, false and objective facts rather than subjective facts are meaningless without logic and math.

Logic and math are, as you wrote, human constructs, but universal in their laws. They are therefore true, eternal and metaphysical. Metaphysical things exist, including God, who is Spirit.

yes, math is the ultimate objective measure, and where materialism ultimately fails, regardless of our intuitive preferences either way.

Everything boils down to specified information, which ultimately cannot be created without creativity- random chance has very little power to create anything other than some intended and necessary variation within pre-existing designs.

 

[metis]

Everything boils down to specified information, which ultimately cannot be created without creativity- random chance has very little power to create anything other than some intended and necessary variation within pre-existing designs.

Did God directly create miscarriages, birth defects, and natural disasters that kill people?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How many specific things have to happen just right for a god to happen?

Also, have you heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy? Because it's what you're doing right now.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia

Just because something happened doesn't mean it was some sort of intended consequence.


News to me. What reason?

So you are saying that based on what both of us know about mutations, rarity of mutating improvements and etc. that 43 million years was enough for dozens of needed systems to evolve? Are you unaware of the difficulties inherent in mechanistic evolution and the desire to claim punctuated equilibrium and so forth to have our evolutiondidit work everytime?

No, rather, you seem to be saying, "It just happened super-duper-fast but there was no theistic evolution or creation, just deal with evolutiondidit".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please list them.

What reason is that? Because you say so...ok.

Hi Christine,

I read stuff like this and I try really, really hard to see apart from intelligent design and I struggle (emphasis mine in bold):

"The complexity of living organisms is staggering."1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the basic things necessary for a cell to function. So far they have found 17 general categories1:

• Replication, recombination, and repair
• Transcription
• Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
• Defense mechanisms
• Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
• Signal transduction mechanisms
• Intracellular trafficking and secretion
• Translation
• Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
• Energy production and conversion
• Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
• Amino acid transport and metabolism
• Nucleotide transport and metabolism
• Coenzyme transport and metabolism
• Lipid transport and metabolism
• Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
• Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism

Each category requires many proteins. All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are saying that based on what both of us know about mutations, rarity of mutating improvements and etc. that 43 million years was enough for dozens of needed systems to evolve? Are you unaware of the difficulties inherent in mechanistic evolution and the desire to claim punctuated equilibrium and so forth to have our evolutiondidit work everytime?

No, rather, you seem to be saying, "It just happened super-duper-fast but there was no theistic evolution or creation, just deal with evolutiondidit".

I didn't say anything about the speed of evolutionary change. Maybe try reading my post more carefully and writing a reply to what I actually said.

 

[ChristineM]

Hi Christine,

I read stuff like this and I try really, really hard to see apart from intelligent design and I struggle (emphasis mine in bold):

"The complexity of living organisms is staggering."1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the basic things necessary for a cell to function. So far they have found 17 general categories1:

• Replication, recombination, and repair
• Transcription
• Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
• Defense mechanisms
• Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
• Signal transduction mechanisms
• Intracellular trafficking and secretion
• Translation
• Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
• Energy production and conversion
• Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
• Amino acid transport and metabolism
• Nucleotide transport and metabolism
• Coenzyme transport and metabolism
• Lipid transport and metabolism
• Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
• Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism

Each category requires many proteins. All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

We have had a similar argument before on another forum, I'm not going into it again because i am not keen on banging my head on a brick wall. So will just repeat the basic argument that counters much of your points. DNA requires only 4 basic chemical's which code depending on environmental conditions. This is observed, documented and peer reviewed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I can't help but notice that every time a topic on the Kalam arises there is always a huge number of people dismissing it as "laughably illogical" or "a pathetically weak argument" or "a cheap apologist trick" or any other condescending name while they themselves can't get the argument straight to begin with.

Would you prefer just reading that the argument is fallacious, It is a non sequitur. It's conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it (see below).

In making such comments one shows clear signs of not having researched the argument seriously.

The argument needs no research. It's a syllogism whose conclusion becomes the premise of a second syllogism.

What research did you do to evaluate, All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal?

4) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists
5) Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists.

4) is the second premise of the second syllogism, and it is incorrect. It doesn't consider other possibilities, such as a multiverse being that source

It is clear then, that the objection that the argument doesn't (even if sound) establish the truth of theism fails.

No, the Kalam argument fails for the reason I just gave you. It offers an unproven and unshared premise as a fact.

I want to talk about my last point and that is the disdain a lot of people here seem to have for the project of Natural Theology in general and/or certain proponents of it in particular.

Many of us have no practical use for theology, at least not the faith-based aspects of it. II'm excluding the Bible as literature or its history, which I consider legitimate scholarship, but not the parts that assume the existence of gods, which has no more legitimacy than studying the Disney princesses or the Pokemon cast of characters. Sorry, but just because a subject can be studied in depth doesn't make it scholarship if it's about nothing real.

You probably have no practical use for astrology, communism, or Scientology. Isn't that reasonable for those rejecting a belief system? Should we pretend otherwise when discussing them?

Or maybe you think that the astrologers are on to something, and Madame Cozmo should be taken seriously and shown more respect rather thought of with disdain.

Christian apologists are viewed the same way as palm reader Madame Cozmo, and Tom Cruise and his thetans, whether it be Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palan, the Duggars, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, or William Lane Craig. Many just see charlatans, and naturally, they disapprove.

One name that often gets a lot of condescension it's way is the mentioned William Lane Craig. The man holds two doctorates, is one of the leading philosophers of religion, one of the most influential philosophers in recent years, has a massive body of work behind him and is generally well-respected among academic circles doing collaborations with famous atheist philosophers who themselves compliment him, with even some pop-atheist "superstars" like Hitchens and Harriss acknowledging him as formidable.

Here, his credentials are his arguments, not his degrees or public stature.

Most of his education is religious studies, including a doctorate in theology, and that which wasn't is wrapped up in his religious argument (Kalam), which most of career appears to be based on. You already know how I feel about theology.

But none of that matters when evaluating this argument. It's simply incorrect.

What more do I need to know about him than that he considers the argument above sound is when it is not? Or maybe you explain why a caused universe must be caused by a personal god.

The premise that everything that has a beginning has a cause isn't clearly established either since rules that apply within a universe don't necessarily apply to universes themselves, nor that the universe had a beginning. Perhaps just the expansion had a beginning.

Craig's credentials are his fallacious argument, not his degrees.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Hi Christine,

I read stuff like this and I try really, really hard to see apart from intelligent design and I struggle (emphasis mine in bold):

"The complexity of living organisms is staggering."1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the basic things necessary for a cell to function.

That would be the requirements for a MODERN cell. Since all cells alive today are the product of more than 3 billion years of evolution we would expect to see a lot of systems that have evolved to be dependent on one another. It's a bit like going into a modern city and listing all of the things that the modern city requires to function properly. No one would think that these are absolutely required for a city to exist, and people understand that this complexity built up over time to the point where many technologies are now dependent on one another.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So you are saying that based on what both of us know about mutations, rarity of mutating improvements and etc. that 43 million years was enough for dozens of needed systems to evolve? Are you unaware of the difficulties inherent in mechanistic evolution and the desire to claim punctuated equilibrium and so forth to have our evolutiondidit work everytime?

No, rather, you seem to be saying, "It just happened super-duper-fast but there was no theistic evolution or creation, just deal with evolutiondidit".

If I showed you the human and chimp genomes could you point to individual differences between those genomes that could not be produced by the known and natural processes that produce mutations?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

A dozen highly specific things must evolve to bring animals to whales in 43 million years.

A massive number of small and subtle interactions between tumbling ping pong balls have to occur in order for a specific person to win the lottery, and yet people win all of the time. The odds of someone winning the lottery is something like 1 in 150 million, yet people win all of the time. How can that be? Of course, a winner becomes inevitable if enough people buy a ticket.

What you are ignoring in your calculations is all of the lineages that didn't evolve that could have evolved, just as we must include all of the losers when we calculate the odds of someone winning the lottery. All you are doing is painting the bulls eye around the bullet hole, and proclaiming what a wonderful shot it was.

And there is reason to believe in intelligent design, regardless of if you feel creation is not falsifiable.

It appears that those reasons are not scientific and are not based on solid reasoning.