Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Agree that formally, the syllogism is valid if not sound, and that it is not an argument for God.

William Lane Craig uses the Kalam Cosmological argument, which appends a second syllogism (sort of) to introduce God into the argument:

1. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”
2. “The universe began to exist.”
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.”
4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”
5. “Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”​

This argument, besides being a non sequitur, doesn't invoke his god.

It's a non sequitur because, as you undoubtedly know, the existence of a universe with a beginning doesn't imply a god, much less one so specifically defined. Why not a multiverse? Why not an uncaused universe with a beginning? Why not two gods?

It absolutely blows my mind that anyone with a brain capable of independent thought cannot see how much Craig has introduced -- absolutely free of evidence or supposition of being axiomatic -- in proposition 4. These include: "uncaused", "personal," "Creator" (note the capital C, making it a proper noun), along with beginningless, changeless (the Bible itself refutes the "changeless" part, though Craig seems unable to remember that when its inconvenient), "immaterial," "timeless," "spaceless," "enormously powerful" and "intelligent." Not a single one of that long list of idiotic suppositions is implied in "If the universe has a cause of its existence."

And if that is the case, why even bother moving on to "5. Therefore...?" Only a fool could really be tempted to that.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

As to 1. No, that's wrong. QM tells us that cause (as the word is used in classical physics) is not involved in an uncountable number of phenomena that happen every second. One example is the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay. Another is the spontaneous formation of particle-antiparticle pairs that instantly self-annihilate, giving rise to the Casimir effect (which thus has an uncaused cause).

As to 2. The universe may have had a beginning. Or it may be that the concept is misleading.

If mass-energy preexisted the Big Bang, then our universe was not the beginning we're talking about (though it's often taken to be the 'beginning' that Genesis starts with). It seems an irresistible conclusion to me that it did pre-exist. The alternative is not Krauss's 'nothing', which allows the existence of underlying quantum phenomena and thus implies a place for them to exist in. A true nothing would have neither mass-energy nor dimensions, would not be anywhere or anywhen or within any frame where such ideas could apply, but would instead be non-existent in every sense.

And if time is a quality of mass-energy, then time exists because mass-energy does, not vice versa, hence time is not an independent element of our continuum but simply a mass-energy phenomenon, with no particular beginning, or with as many beginnings as you please. That hypothesis is neither demonstrated nor rebutted.

As to 3. Therefore the universe may or may not have had a cause (as the word is used in classical physics). But whether there ever was a 'beginning', or simply mass-energy, or something else, is an open question.

I agree that the premises may not be true. I for one, however, do not pretend to understand concepts that I actually do not understand, and I know that I do not understand quantum mechanics even though I have studied physics and taken many mathematics courses. Thus, I am not going to assert facts based on evidence from a field that I myself do not fully understand. Would be willing to bet that you do not understand QM either, even if you think you do (forgive me if I'm wrong).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well that's a partially reasoned statement that's upon reflection is self evident. Since it's self evident it brings us to a dysfunction neurologically in a particular region of the brain. The problem then is the The exact same phenomena that creates the Confusion in context to in this case intellectualized cosmology now can create an intellectualizing of neurology. This can be as fantasy driven as any intellectualized cosmology. Breathing, and a healthy dosage of getting out is a greatly under appreciated thing we don't do much of. About 1 second in nature can cure it. But getting to that 1 second can take a lifetime, that many never accomplish.....so Sad.

I assume you have some idea of what you said. I don't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In most descriptions, the multiverse doesn't have a beginning.

And the others? Also (and this may be an embarrassingly naive question) are they described such that they don't have a beginning or such that beginnings are simply not addressed?

 

[shunyadragon]

Correct. The concept of "God" then resolves the problem of what caused what you refer to as the "Natural Laws".

This remains an open question impossible to resolve. As far as the philosophical naturlist is concerned natural laws are eternal.

 

[74x12]

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....

In my opinion it's a strong argument because you're pushing the problem further back. You're not really getting rid of the problem entirely. So you can say an alien kid made the experiment or a metaphysical dragon barfed it out. But, who made them? So, at some point you have to get to the very first Cause. The Cause that was not caused by anything else.

 

[shunyadragon]

And the others? Also (and this may be an embarrassingly naive question) are they described such that they don't have a beginning or such that beginnings are simply not addressed?

Basically it is an unanswerable question. Vilenkin proposed that the multiverse could possibly have a beginning based on math, but than again our multiverse (if it exists) could be one of many, ergo, turtles all the way down. He believed that he demonstrated that our universe definitely had a beginning within a multiverse. Since Vilenkin there have been a number potential cyclic and a viable black hole universe models.

 

[shunyadragon]

In my opinion it's a strong argument because you're pushing the problem further back. You're not really getting rid of the problem entirely. So you can say an alien kid made the experiment or a metaphysical dragon barfed it out. But, who made them? So, at some point you have to get to the very first Cause. The Cause that was not caused by anything else.

It is possible that there was no first cause beyond our eternal physical existence and natural laws.

 

[blü 2]

I agree that the premises may not be true. I for one, however, do not pretend to understand concepts that I actually do not understand, and I know that I do not understand quantum mechanics even though I have studied physics and taken many mathematics courses. Thus, I am not going to assert facts based on evidence from a field that I myself do not fully understand. Would be willing to bet that you do not understand QM either, even if you think you do (forgive me if I'm wrong).

Hmm. Well, I don't understand international banking but I buy things on the net ─ that is, I part with real money ─ all the time, thinking that at least I have the general idea.

And if I were to use your test routinely then I'd be a helpless babe in conversations with my dentist and my medical adviser and my ophthalmologist, let alone discussing markets, architecture, law, politics, liquor, engineering, cooking, and Large Hadron Colliders.

Call me pragmatic, but there are many things I think I sufficiently know if I have an understanding of the outline and the power to look up further details if needed.

I can only admire your living up to the exacting standards you prescribe.

 

[Polymath257]

And the others? Also (and this may be an embarrassingly naive question) are they described such that they don't have a beginning or such that beginnings are simply not addressed?

It depends a bit on the version of quantum gravity that is used. If the singularity of the Big Bang isn't smoothed out, there can be a beginning for time, etc.

Most quantum theories of gravity, however, do not have that. Instead, time in the multiverse (which is slightly different than time in our universe) goes infinitely into the past and has no beginning. Since that time is part of the multiverse, the multiverse also is without a beginning.

 

[Polymath257]

Basically it is an unanswerable question. Vilenkin proposed that the multiverse could possibly have a beginning based on math, but than again our multiverse (if it exists) could be one of many, ergo, turtles all the way down. He believed that he demonstrated that our universe definitely had a beginning within a multiverse. Since Vilenkin there have been a number potential cyclic and a viable black hole universe models.

Not to mention exponentially expanding empty space models.

 

[Polymath257]

In my opinion it's a strong argument because you're pushing the problem further back. You're not really getting rid of the problem entirely. So you can say an alien kid made the experiment or a metaphysical dragon barfed it out. But, who made them? So, at some point you have to get to the very first Cause. The Cause that was not caused by anything else.

Or there simply was no cause. Or there were multiple uncaused causes. Or (strangest) things are cyclic.

 

[sayak83]

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....

Proposition 1 is directly false. QM falsifies it. The decay of a radioactive nucleus at a specific given time does not have a cause.

 

[shunyadragon]

Proposition 1 is directly false. QM falsifies it. The decay of a radioactive nucleus at a specific given time does not have a cause.

Quantum Mechanics further falsifies Proposition 1, because by its nature there is no cause, quantum fluctuations from Quantum zero point gravity have no known cause other than the nature of Quantum zero point energy and Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It depends a bit on the version of quantum gravity that is used. If the singularity of the Big Bang isn't smoothed out, there can be a beginning for time, etc.

Most quantum theories of gravity, however, do not have that. Instead, time in the multiverse (which is slightly different than time in our universe) goes infinitely into the past and has no beginning. Since that time is part of the multiverse, the multiverse also is without a beginning.

So, to reduce this to language that I might understand, there are theories that posit/outline mathematically coherent systems with no beginning, and others, perhaps a minority, in which a beginning is either possible or probable.

And, of course, if there is no beginning there is no First Cause.

I could not agree more. The Cosmological Argument may not be applicable. We simply don't know. Or it may be applicable. Again, we simply don't know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know how to test it, either. It doesn't sound like a scientific hypothesis to me.

Why did you ignore that the multiverse hypothesis may be testable? I don't think that anyone claimed that the perpetual mutiverse is a scientific hypothesis yet. You do not appear to understand that concepts are worked up to in the sciences. First they need to be able to fully test the concept of a multiverse. Then they can begin to think about testing the perpetual multiverse concept.

"Autonomous" means "not subject to control from outside; independent". the definition of autonomous What supposedly controls "the multiverse" from the outside? What outside of itself is "the multiverse" supposedly dependent upon?

It also means "self controlled". Since I explained how the multiverse would merely exist the meaning should have been obvious from contest. Dishonest nitpicking is dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, to reduce this to language that I might understand, there are theories that posit/outline mathematically coherent systems with no beginning, and others, perhaps a minority, in which a beginning is either possible or probable.

And, of course, if there is no beginning there is no First Cause.

I could not agree more. The Cosmological Argument may not be applicable. We simply don't know. Or it may be applicable. Again, we simply don't know.

Not only that, but the Cosmological Argument only argues for a beginning. Properly stated it does not argue for a god. It appears to be a loss all the way around for those trying to use it.

 

[siti]

Not only that, but the Cosmological Argument only argues for a beginning. Properly stated it does not argue for a god. It appears to be a loss all the way around for those trying to use it.

Its actually worse than that...barely concealed in the premises of all the versions I've seen are bald assumptions (which is probably why the early formulations emerged from under the glabrous pates of tonsured philosophers) about time and causality that cannot possibly apply to the 'timeless' and 'causeless' existence of the timeless and uncaused cause that the conclusions declare to be the cause of the very beginning of time and causality.

 

[sealchan]

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....

My sense is that in Judaism and Christianity a primary truth-assumption is that God is the creator and as such is someone one can personally relate to with respect to that creation and one's self as part of that creation. That is more important than proving it via some dubious syllogism.

 

[taykair]

I know nothing of syllogisms, so I will posit a silly-gism:

The so-called "cosmological argument" is something which is trotted out by ignorant theists in order to prove the existence of this "god-thing" that they worship.

I have proven, through my flawless logic and superior intellect, that the cosmological argument is bunk.

Therefore, there is no God.