Questions about the Cosmological Argument

[razredge]

Originally Posted by LifeIsAbsurd

Interesting! The times they are a-changing.

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic....-physics-2011/

Yeah, but the accelerating universe has been noted for the past decade or so - what will really be a huge shock to physics/cosmology is if we can't find out why those neutrinos at CERN seem to travel faster than the speed of light.

[Samuel Monosov]

Originally Posted by razredge

Yeah, but the accelerating universe has been noted for the past decade or so - what will really be a huge shock to physics/cosmology is if we can't find out why those neutrinos at CERN seem to travel faster than the speed of light.

Now that would be exciting!

I suspect a simple explanation will surface, or has surfaced, that resolves this mystery. But I am hopeful that it is a real mystery, and will require completely new physics and a radically different way to see the world.

Borde Guth Vilenkin only holds if the average of the Hubble expansion parameter is > 0 over past time. Sean Carroll's idea that there is an eternal pre-universe, or Hawking's idea that the forces or principles acting on an eternal 'vacuum' can account for the existence of the universe. These sorts of things would be the first causes.

[Samuel Monosov]

Originally Posted by promethius

1. Do you find this argument convincing?
When stated in its entirety, yes.

What does the argument look like when stated in its entirety?

Show me one ACTUAL item which is provably self-caused.

How would someone prove that something is self-caused/uncaused? Is proof necessary?

There is no argument to go from 3 to X. 3 is merely a statement that we consider the uncaused cause to be God. It requires no argument because it makes no assertion other than assigning a name to a variable (no different than a math equation stating "let X = 3")

Let X = Gravity. Or let X = eternal pre-universe. Or ...

Why not this sort of thing?

[perro sarnoso]

Originally Posted by Samuel Monosov

This simple argument for God's existence, sometimes called the Kalam argument, goes something like:

1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
...various arguments...
X. This cause is God.

Here go my questions:
1. Do you find this argument convincing?

2. If not, why not?

3. If you do find this argument convincing, how do you answer the objection that things may be self-caused?

4. What about the objection that something that has a beginning may not be caused?

5. Finally, what arguments do you use to go from (3) to (X), and how do you eliminate alternative causes, such as some eternal pre-universe, etc?

1 thru 5 are a pendulum of unreason!

How can something that "has a beginning" not have a cause. How did it begin??

How can something be self caused??? unless it had some self consciousness of itself and even so how can it bring itself into being or into cause???where did its first thought of self awarness stem from???

"Some eternal pre-univers blah, blah, blah???????" Come on! You can't even formulate a coherent premise.

THis is precisely why God is necessary and not contingent.

[JohnAlexander]

Originally Posted by Cecilia_Dympna

Hi. If we define God to be this first cause, does that just not raise the question what caused God? And put us back to square one? Thank you.

No. The first statement says that everything that has a beginning has a cause. The argument does not say that God has a beginning.

[Samuel Monosov]

No pendulum (pentagram?) of unreason. Just questions. How do you answer them?

Originally Posted by perro sarnoso

How can something that "has a beginning" not have a cause. How did it begin?

Perhaps there is no explanation, or perhaps the explanation is accounted for in the thing that has the beginning: the thing is self-caused.

What does self-caused have to do with awareness? Why is awareness required?

"Some eternal pre-univers blah, blah, blah?" Come on! You can't even formulate a coherent premise.

How is an eternal pre-universe incoherent?

[JohnAlexander]

Originally Posted by Cecilia_Dympna

I was going to say that. Whatever it is about God that means that God doesn't need a cause, why can't that apply to the universe instead. So we don't need the explanation of God.

The reason why we dont think the universe is eternal is because there is no evidence of an eternal universe.

Everything we observe scientifically points to a finite universe.

[Shike]

Originally Posted by Samuel Monosov

How is an eternal pre-universe incoherent?

It's not philosophically incoherent. But JohnAlexander is correct.

Now something self-caused... that is philosophically incoherent. Nothing comes from nothing (any attempt to sidestep this necessarily involves one in a contradiction).

[Samuel Monosov]

Originally Posted by Shike

It's not philosophically incoherent. But JohnAlexander is correct.

JohnAlexander's comment does not address the idea of an eternal pre-universe.

Now something self-caused... that is philosophically incoherent. Nothing comes from nothing (any attempt to sidestep this necessarily involves one in a contradiction).

It's not from nothing. It's from itself.

Where is the contradiction?

Where is the contradiction from something starting from nothing, with no causal explanation?

I'm not a philosopher. Please explain.

[razredge]

Originally Posted by Samuel Monosov

Where is the contradiction from something starting from nothing, with no causal explanation?

I'm not a philosopher. Please explain.

Lol, the basic principle of metaphysics and any (kind of attempt to to empirical science really) is ex nihilo nihil fit, something coming from nothing is no better than magic.

[Samuel Monosov]

Originally Posted by razredge

Lol, the basic principle of metaphysics and any (kind of attempt to to empirical science really) is ex nihilo nihil fit, something coming from nothing is no better than magic.

It's nice words, but I don't see the contradiction. What if there are strange things in our universe that violate this rule? What if the rules are different than this basic principle of metaphysics? What do you think the consequences would be? And how do you reach your conclusions about these consequences?

[belorg]

Originally Posted by Samuel Monosov

This simple argument for God's existence, sometimes called the Kalam argument, goes something like:

1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
...various arguments...
X. This cause is God.

Here go my questions:
1. Do you find this argument convincing?

No

2. If not, why not?

Because the Kalam Cosmological argument disproves God

5. Finally, what arguments do you use to go from (3) to (X), and how do you eliminate alternative causes, such as some eternal pre-universe, etc?

It is impossible to go from 3 to X because the onkly logical conlusion fro m 3 is actually
"This cause most certainly isn't God".
The Kalam cosmological argument is a really co,vincing argument aagainst theism.

The reason why this is so is quite simple.
If we agree with premsie 1-3 then, unless we take into account an infinte regress of time, we end up with an a-temporal cause of the universe.
Even conceding for the sake of the argument that the concept of a timeless person is coherent (and I actually see no reason to think it is), the problem is that a timeless person cannot create anything that begins. So, if, as the KCA claims, the universe really did begin, it cannot possibly have been created by a timeless person.

[Shike]

Originally Posted by Samuel Monosov

JohnAlexander's comment does not address the idea of an eternal pre-universe.

Correct. But JohnAlexander was still correct.

It's not from nothing. It's from itself.

Sure, we are looking at something causing itself; you are right. My comment about 'nothing comes from nothing' was to help illustrate the principle of non-contradiction.

The manifest contradiction with something causing its own existence is that it would have to both exist and not exist in the same respect (and if in time, then at the same time).

And the reason one should reject the "open-minded" attitude that the laws of logic may not apply everywhere, is that the laws of logic are at the foundation of coherent thought... It's not coherent to say that the laws of logic do not apply everywhere. A suitable translation is that 'the laws of logic asdfas dfaskf dsafsadfasd red blue tigers scissors run'. The possibility cannot be thought. Commenting on the possibility of nonsense is still nonsense.

The laws of logic are inescapable.

Good questions.

[Shike]

Originally Posted by belorg

Even conceding for the sake of the argument that the concept of a timeless person is coherent (and I actually see no reason to think it is), the problem is that a timeless person cannot create anything that begins. So, if, as the KCA claims, the universe really did begin, it cannot possibly have been created by a timeless person.

I'm not a fan of the Kalaam, I don't think it works.

That said, you are on to something. The way an unchanging being creates would be very different than the way any finite being would. I don't see a contradiction however.

In Aristotelian terms change would be the interaction of two principles, that of potentiality reducing to actuality. A being that did not undergo this interaction of principles must be Pure Actuality. And the way Pure Actuality creates would be very different than anything else because it would not undergo change. Such a Being would not have to create from pre-existing matter but could call-forth, so-to-speak, existing things instantaneously.

[belorg]

Originally Posted by Shike

I'm not a fan of the Kalaam, I don't think it works.

That said, you are on to something. The way an unchanging being creates would be very different than the way any finite being would. I don't see a contradiction however.

The difference is that an unchanging being cannot create a beginning universe.
And it's eazsy to see why.
An unchanging being cannot go from 'not creating' to 'creating' because that would be a change. So the only way for an unchanging being to create is by always being creating. but that means that the effect of this eternal creation is also eternal. Hence, if the universe really did begin, this eternal unchanging being cannot possibly be the creator of the universe.

In Aristotelian terms change would be the interaction of two principles, that of potentiality reducing to actuality. A being that did not undergo this interaction of principles must be Pure Actuality. And the way Pure Actuality creates would be very different than anything else because it would not undergo change.

Just like I said.

Such a Being would not have to create from pre-existing matter but could call-forth, so-to-speak, existing things instantaneously.

I think Aristotelean-Thomistic cosmology is self-defeating, buit that goes beyond the scope of this thread.