Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

[David T]

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

Thank you.

The original post made a self evident statement. What we think is irrelevant at a fundemental level. If that's not self evident, we'll then, that's a cultural psychological dysfunction of a particular region of neurology.

 

[ChristineM]

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 cosmological argument in the OP fails on at least 2 counts

A universe from nothing is understood mathematically and scientifically to be a feasible sinario
[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

And the law of this universe that demand causality (2nd law of thermodynamics) did not begin to form until after the bb event and was not fully coalesce until 10e-24 of a second after the bb event.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not only that, but the Cosmological Argument only argues for a beginning.

That is not true. It posits a first, and therefore preternatural, cause.

Properly stated it does not argue for a god.

True, it makes no distinction between Catalyst and Agency.

It appears to be a loss all the way around for those trying to use it.

I'm sure you find that perspective comforting.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And, even in those cases where time begins, causality is a part of the universe/multiverse. Also, causality itself becomes problematic when quantum effects are involved. That's because quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic and not deterministic. Even figuring out what is meant by 'cause' in such a situation isn't easy.

 

[Polymath257]

That is not true. It posits a first, and therefore preternatural, cause.

True, it makes no distinction between Catalyst and Agency.


I'm sure you find that perspective comforting.

But, even when it works, the Cosmological Argument only shows the existence of uncaused causes, not a first cause. It does not show the uniqueness of such. And it does NOT show that uncaused cause is 'preternatural'.

So, according to our current understanding, many quantum events qualify as uncaused causes. And those happen all the time all around us.

Second, having a beginning and having a cause are not linked (again quantum events show otherwise). So, even if you use time instead of causality and show a 'beginning of time', you can't step then to a first *cause*.

 

[GreenpeaceRECo-operative]

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....

"There are many possibilities for (the universe´s) cause other than (God)...."- "An alien kid´s experiment, etc" Right. First of all, as a modernist humanist theist, I see at least one fundamental confusion in anti-God arguments like yours. Normally, the Physics framework of the argument is asserted, and the point becomes, "This isn´t about Physics. Physics is a subdomain of culture, and only "objective" as a subjective/social/cultural invention. Sociology is a good contrasting example. In the Sociology of Economics, Marx postulated the existence of "exploitation." We don´t go to Physics to define that term. We define that term in terms of the human interactions and social characteristics. "A boss with economic and political power and influence owns a company and its production facilities and underpays and overworks employees," more or less roughly put. We don´t say, "What do they say in Physics? There is no ´exploitation´ body or energy in space, so it can´t exist here on Earth."

The fast and loose throwing around of pop culture media suggestions and inventions reflects perhaps less Physics, but the academic subdomain of anti-dogmatic Social Psychology and pop culture. Rather than a merely skeptical atheist, the view seems an anti-religionist humanist viewpoint.

As a modernist humanist theist, I´m not constructing my Christianity from doctrines from mom, dad, or my local church. I was a spiritual seeker, embraced a few aspects of a few paths, Therapeutic Psychology, the Sociology of Social Movements, and with the associated criteria of spiritual values found that I recognize the sense of what Jesus taught in the NT, including God. No less, modern philosophical Freethinking allows me to formulate "God", the Creator, the Supreme Being as the Creator (Entity) of the Universe who I exist in relation to. I see it constructed on social and ecological responsibility relationships that I have built previously, along with the meditative and prayerful experience and the relationship that develops and represents. Moreover, that is not just a "present continuous tense," to use the grammatical term. It is the "present perfect tense," just as much. That is, the Judeo-Christian tradition of prophets, visions, and ethics for social justice led to Jesus, who in turn was followed by a new legacy (divergent from the mainstream Jewish).

From that Sociological and Anthropological kind of viewpoint, we understand that the, inferred, really, viewpoint of "God of Religion X" actually refers to the expression by designated prophets of their visionary experiences. It is hardly "laughable", unless we recognize with some meta awareness where you are coming from. Within the modern meta-Christian Western Civilization, you have Freedom of Religion or Not. If you were a serious figure, like Bernie Sanders, or in a non-Western Muslim country, you would hardly find the matter an easy target for armchair internet humanist ridicule. Bernie Sanders would keep you at a distance. The Muslim´s would do worse.

Me? I would remind you that atheist societies have never lasted long. There is a good reason that the 10 Commandments and Jesus´ own about love, their ethics, are associated with "God." My modernist humanist theist definition explains why. It´s not a "belief" first and foremost. It´s a relationship that you perceive, or learned to, or haven´t yet. Or you choose to allow to be mechanistic or the like.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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....

Please help me understand. If it is a five-year-old alien kid who made a universe that is at least 46.5 billion light years across, you would not bow before his power, because he's "just a kid"?

You have a perspective issue, not a logic issue. This is the pride the scriptures refer to--I understand you are approaching the syllogism kindly, even generously, but if I meet the "kid" who holds timespace together and makes black holes, quasars and little old Earth, I will be deferent!

 

[Polymath257]

Please help me understand. If it is a five-year-old alien kid who made a universe that is at least 46.5 billion light years across, you would not bow before his power, because he's "just a kid"?

You have a perspective issue, not a logic issue. This is the pride the scriptures refer to--I understand you are approaching the syllogism kindly, even generously, but if I meet the "kid" who holds timespace together and makes black holes, quasars and little old Earth, I will be deferent!

No, I would not. I don't see a reason to bow at all. Deference, as in respecting power, is different than worship.

Maybe this universe was made by that kid as an art exercise and discarded as uninteresting after he got a 'C' on the assignment. Maybe this type of 'power' is considered ordinary and normal for these aliens. And, if they use the laws of physics they are aware of, this doesn't even require a 'supernatural'.

So, why would *you* bow to such a kid?

 

[metis]

Don't know if that's accurate or not, but I highly doubt it's been mathematically proven.

There was lots of skepticism even by most cosmologists, even to the point of laughing at him, but he won them over. IOW, the formula works, but all mathematical formulas can be cross-checked (remember what we're taught in math classes), with the ultimate test being does it really work out in reality?

Intelligence does not always translate into common sense or rationality.

Ya, but if I'm going head-to-head against someone like Hawking, I better prepare to possibly be humbled. After all, he established the fact that there are black holes long before the vast majority of other cosmologists thought they were even possible.

So, not to say that he must be right, which I obviously cannot say, why do you have a problem with what he concluded mathematically? I'll be the first to say "I don't know", but that's not the position you seem to be taking.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Well, there's a difference between pragmatically functioning in the real world by utilizing tools that you don't fully understand and asserting truths about the universe as fact by appealing to a branch of science that you know very little about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not true. It posits a first, and therefore preternatural, cause.

Actually it doesn't. That is an addendum by Craig. Now it was assumed from the start that that cause was a god, but when one does that the argument instantly fails. You added the qualification "preternatural" and that is an unjustified assumption. The argument in its purest form is more like this:

"

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause."

Nothing about a god or magical agency there.

True, it makes no distinction between Catalyst and Agency.

Good, then we agree.

I'm sure you find that perspective comforting.

No, not especially since it was such a weak argument to begin with.

 

[Nous]

Why did you ignore that the multiverse hypothesis may be testable?

Because it's irrelevant. That isn't the claim I was responding to or asking about.

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.

I don't have a clue as to what you're trying to say about the lack of autonomy of "a multiverse". I quoted the definition of "autonomy," and asked you a couple of questions regarding what you're trying to say, but you didn't answer. Frankly, for all the basis in reality for your claims about "a multiverse," I think you might as well be trying to describe square circles. But I'll just repeat my questions: "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?

 

[Nous]

As far as the philosophical naturlist is concerned natural laws are eternal.

Really?!!!! Name all the "philosophical naturalists" you know of who have espoused the idea of eternal laws of nature.

I definitely find it difficult to comprehend in what sense the laws of nature, e.g., Coulomb's electrostatic force law, supposedly existed 100 trillion years ago, before there was a universe. Obviously the proposition that the laws of nature are eternal is not deduced from any fact. In what way is it different to claim that the laws of nature are eternal and to claim that they exist(ed) in God's mind?

The SEP article on Laws of Nature does not mention anyone espousing the eternalness of the laws of nature.

The IEP article uses the adjective once in passing, without citation. This article is written by Norman Swartz. Anyone familiar with his thesis that rests on the distinction between regularist and necessitarian views on the laws of nature will readily understand his emphasis of such distinction in this article. He verges on caricaturing the necessitarian position in this article, and overtly rejects it:

Even as recently as the Eighteenth Century, we find philosophers (e.g. Montesquieu) explicitly attributing the order in nature to the hand of God, more specifically to His having imposed physical laws on nature in much the same way as He imposed moral laws on human beings. There was one essential difference, however. Human beings -- it was alleged -- are "free" to break (act contrary to) God's moral laws; but neither human beings nor the other parts of creation are free to break God's physical laws.

In the Twentieth Century virtually all scientists and philosophers have abandoned theistic elements in their accounts of the Laws of Nature. But to a very great extent -- so say the Regularists -- the Necessitarians have merely replaced God with Physical Necessity. The Necessitarians' nontheistic view of Laws of Nature surreptitiously preserves the older prescriptivist view of Laws of Nature, namely, as dictates or edicts to the natural universe,edicts which -- unlike moral laws or legislated ones -- no one, and no thing, has the ability to violate.

Regularists reject this view of the world. Regularists eschew a view of Laws of Nature which would make of them inviolable edicts imposed on the universe. Such a view, Regularists claim, is simply a holdover from a theistic view. It is time, they insist, to adopt a thoroughly naturalistic philosophy of science, one which is not only purged of the hand of God, but is also purged of its unempirical latter-day surrogate, namely, nomological necessity. The difference is, perhaps, highlighted most strongly in Necessitarians saying that the Laws of Nature govern the world; while Regularists insist that Laws of Nature do no more or less than correctly describe the world.​

In any case, regardless of the fact that you are saying something directly contradicted by the scholarly literature on the matter, to claim that the laws of nature are eternal certainly doesn't refute the cosmological argument in any way. Indeed, it would seem to support the cosmological argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Really?!!!! Name all the "philosophical naturalists" you know of who have espoused the idea of eternal laws of nature.

I definitely find it difficult to comprehend in what sense the laws of nature, e.g., Coulomb's electrostatic force law, supposedly existed 100 trillion years ago, before there was a universe. Obviously the proposition that the laws of nature are eternal is not deduced from any fact. In what way is it different to claim that the laws of nature are eternal and to claim that they exist(ed) in God's mind?

The SEP article on Laws of Nature does not mention anyone espousing the eternalness of the laws of nature.

The IEP article uses the adjective once in passing, without citation. This article is written by Norman Swartz. Anyone familiar with his thesis that rests on the distinction between regularist and necessitarian views on the laws of nature will readily understand his emphasis of such distinction in this article. He verges on caricaturing the necessitarian position in this article, and overtly rejects it:

Even as recently as the Eighteenth Century, we find philosophers (e.g. Montesquieu) explicitly attributing the order in nature to the hand of God, more specifically to His having imposed physical laws on nature in much the same way as He imposed moral laws on human beings. There was one essential difference, however. Human beings -- it was alleged -- are "free" to break (act contrary to) God's moral laws; but neither human beings nor the other parts of creation are free to break God's physical laws.

In the Twentieth Century virtually all scientists and philosophers have abandoned theistic elements in their accounts of the Laws of Nature. But to a very great extent -- so say the Regularists -- the Necessitarians have merely replaced God with Physical Necessity. The Necessitarians' nontheistic view of Laws of Nature surreptitiously preserves the older prescriptivist view of Laws of Nature, namely, as dictates or edicts to the natural universe,edicts which -- unlike moral laws or legislated ones -- no one, and no thing, has the ability to violate.

Regularists reject this view of the world. Regularists eschew a view of Laws of Nature which would make of them inviolable edicts imposed on the universe. Such a view, Regularists claim, is simply a holdover from a theistic view. It is time, they insist, to adopt a thoroughly naturalistic philosophy of science, one which is not only purged of the hand of God, but is also purged of its unempirical latter-day surrogate, namely, nomological necessity. The difference is, perhaps, highlighted most strongly in Necessitarians saying that the Laws of Nature govern the world; while Regularists insist that Laws of Nature do no more or less than correctly describe the world.​

In any case, regardless of the fact that you are saying something directly contradicted by the scholarly literature on the matter, to claim that the laws of nature are eternal certainly doesn't refute the cosmological argument in any way. Indeed, it would seem to support the cosmological argument.

First we are not necessarily equating the Laws of Science we develop as descriptive of our universe with eternal nature of our physical existence governed necessarily by the Natural Laws of our physical existence..

The greater universe including all possible universes would a Quantum World without time and space. The following source begins to address the issue of the questions of the ultimate Laws of Nature and the scientific Laws that have been developed by scientific methods to describe the laws of our universe.

From:https://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/
1. Laws of Nature vs. Laws of Science
In 1959, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Michael Scriven read a paper that implicitly distinguished between Laws of Nature and Laws of Science. Laws of Science (what he at that time called "physical laws") – with few exceptions – are inaccurate, are at best approximations of the truth, and are of limited range of application. The theme has since been picked up and advanced by Nancy Cartwright.

If scientific laws are inaccurate, then – presumably – there must be some other laws (statements, propositions, principles), doubtless more complex, which are accurate, which are not approximation to the truth but are literally true.

When, for example, generations of philosophers have agonized over whether physical determinism precludes the existence of free will (for example, Honderich), they have been concerned with these latter laws, the laws of nature itself.

It is the explication of these latter laws, the Laws of Nature, that is the topic of this article. We will not here be examining the "approximate truths" of science. Thus, to cite just one example, the controversy over whether scientific laws are (merely) instruments lies outside the topic of this article.

Some consider the Laws of Quantum Mechanics (still not fully understood) to be the ultimate laws of our physical existence beyond our universe. More references to follow.

I know of now physicists nor cosmologists that consider the physical existence and the laws that ultimately explain it limited in any way. As I previously mentioned the possible limits to our physical existence and the ultimate laws that govern our existence is unknown.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

... you would not bow before his power, because he's "just a kid"?

I bow to no one and to no force----for I am not a Slave.

To bow is to submit, as a slave does for his master. I acknowledge no master--again, I'm not a slave.

 

[Nous]

First we are not necessarily equating the Laws of Science we develop as descriptive of our universe with eternal nature of our physical existence governed necessarily by the Natural Laws of our physical existence..

The greater universe including all possible universes would a Quantum World without time and space. The following source begins to address the issue of the questions of the ultimate Laws of Nature and the scientific Laws that have been developed by scientific methods to describe the laws of our universe.

From:https://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/
1. Laws of Nature vs. Laws of Science
In 1959, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Michael Scriven read a paper that implicitly distinguished between Laws of Nature and Laws of Science. Laws of Science (what he at that time called "physical laws") – with few exceptions – are inaccurate, are at best approximations of the truth, and are of limited range of application. The theme has since been picked up and advanced by Nancy Cartwright.

If scientific laws are inaccurate, then – presumably – there must be some other laws (statements, propositions, principles), doubtless more complex, which are accurate, which are not approximation to the truth but are literally true.

When, for example, generations of philosophers have agonized over whether physical determinism precludes the existence of free will (for example, Honderich), they have been concerned with these latter laws, the laws of nature itself.

It is the explication of these latter laws, the Laws of Nature, that is the topic of this article. We will not here be examining the "approximate truths" of science. Thus, to cite just one example, the controversy over whether scientific laws are (merely) instruments lies outside the topic of this article.

So you can't name even a single "philosophical naturalist" who has espoused that the laws of nature are eternal?

Frankly I find the whole issue of the claimed eternalness of the laws of nature too goofy to concern myself with. It doesn't have any relevancy to the validity or soundness of the cosmological argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you can't name even a single "philosophical naturalist" who has espoused that the laws of nature are eternal?

Frankly I find the whole issue of the claimed eternalness of the laws of nature too goofy to concern myself with. It doesn't have any relevancy to the validity or soundness of the cosmological argument.

More to follow, but apparently did not read the reference. Your religious agenda apparently from a very high wall of intentionally invoked ignorance. More to follow.

I have no problem with concluding that many if not most physicists are philosophical naturalist humanists in their world view, and none propose limits on our physical existence and the ultimate Laws of Nature that govern our universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you can't name even a single "philosophical naturalist" who has espoused that the laws of nature are eternal?

Frankly I find the whole issue of the claimed eternalness of the laws of nature too goofy to concern myself with. It doesn't have any relevancy to the validity or soundness of the cosmological argument.

Do you have a point with this strange derail of yours?

 

[shunyadragon]

So you can't name even a single "philosophical naturalist" who has espoused that the laws of nature are eternal?

Frankly I find the whole issue of the claimed eternalness of the laws of nature too goofy to concern myself with. It doesn't have any relevancy to the validity or soundness of the cosmological argument.

Weinberg and Max Tegmark are philosophical naturalist humanist in their world view. They believe in a multiverse universe without boundaries and ultimate Laws of Nature.

From: Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

• Our universe may be one of many, physicists say.

All this shows how far and how fast our knowledge of the cosmos has expanded: Generating multiple universes by eternal chaotic inflation, a theory developed in the last four decades, is now the standard model of cosmology.

I asked Steven Weinberg, a founder of the Standard Model of particle physics now at the University of Texas at Austin, about other kinds of multiple universes. "There's another possibility, which is fairly simple to imagine," he said. "Our Big Bang is one episode and may be followed [and/or may have been preceded] by a series of other bangs, and our universe will make a transition into a different kind of expanding universe so that we are just living through a particular age.

"There are still other possibilities, which are more recondite," Weinberg continued. "Quantum mechanics can be applied to the whole shebang. Because the fundamental quanta in quantum mechanics is not the individual particle or billiard ball but is something called the 'wave function,' which describes all possibilities, it may be that the universe, the comprehensive universe, the whole thing, is some kind of quantum mechanical superposition of different possibilities." (This is Tegmark's Level III.)

"Then, there are even more exotic possibilities," Weinberg added. "The philosopher Robert Nozick introduced the so-called 'principle of fecundity,' according to which everything imaginable exists some place — not in our same space-time but entirely separate." Weinberg noted that the principle of fecundity undermines (or trivializes) the question of why things are the way they are (i.e., why "this way" rather than "that way"), because whatever is possible must and does exist (somewhere). (The philosopher David Lewis proposed a similar theory of "modal realism" in which all possible worlds, astonishingly, are actual worlds.)

But to achieve such immensity and diversity, wouldn't there still have to be, at a deeper level, some rock-bottom, fundamental "universe-generating laws" to create all the multiple universes in the first place, each of which has its own different laws? Where is bedrock reality?"

The physicists and cosmologists that support the multiverse concept support the eternal nature of our physical existence, and the ultimate Natural Laws that govern it.

 

[Nous]

Weinberg and Max Tegmark are philosophical naturalist humanist in their world view.

Where did you get that idea? And even if it were true, where have they espoused the idea of the eternalness of the laws of nature?