arguments against the cosmological argument

The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. It is believed that the universe is on the order of 20 Billion lightyears across, and that the total amount of electrons in the universe is 10^80. • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. You can’t arbitrarily decide that they were always there, because then you’re assuming what you intend to prove, which is begging the question. You said “False. Then, we must redefine f as follows: f:{x | x is something that can exist}xM->(null), where f simply places all x given to f into M. Then, a time before time for any given universe, Ui, is a time that occurs in a younger universe, Uj. This is a reply to EriK. Then, there exists some deity, g, such that g started the universe. It were better therefore never to look beyond the present material world." Severinsen argues that there is an “infinite” and complex causal structure. Dr. Craig, I have some questions about your version of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (which you call the argument from contingency--is there a difference?). • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known) The strengths of the cosmological argument. 4. The strengths fo the cosmological argument outweigh the weaknesses. For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. This means that if the candidate god EVER LIES, it cannot be the true God. Although I once used to think that the LCA was the most powerful argument natural theology had to offer, reading some material by its atheist critics has led me to doubt its soundness. Stanley L. Jaki. Yet this would be in direct contradiction to your own necessity. You appear to be defining your god to be moral based on the fact that he is moral. So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. Arguments against. But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Take just step (3), for example. That thing could not be bound by time itself, since that thing created time. [25] Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument are found in his book Dialogues on Natural Religion. Mr. Cliff Soon wrote a defense of the Cosmological Argument. “For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. I understand that you do not intend this to be a forum for debate, so I’ll try to be brief. Not hard to imagine that even at the lowest possible deployment intangible components the nature of God – the Spirit of God – for the level of the original downwardly directed continuous deployment the material component of the essence of God, there is a curtailment of SIMPLE and COMPLEX /i.e.. their decay occurs due to blocking of origin upwardly directed constantly deploy components of their intangible essences/, as the maximum possible heterogeneous nature of God to the minimum possible number of cell uniformity (№1h) and God on the basis of the material components of the minimum possible №1 deploys heterogeneous to its essence as possible numerical element uniformity (№2H). Since time has not been existing for an infinite period, something must have caused time to begin to exist. • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) That really doesn’t jell with your comment about your god being simple. • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) You can imagine them having simply appeared by themselves, conforming to some but not all laws of physics all you want, but the fact remains that they didn’t. However, as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent. Part 1 of my Introduction to the Cosmological Argument. cosmological argument invok es an impossibility, no cosmol ogical arguments can provide exa mples of sound reasoning (1991, c h. 7). Infinities do not actually exist. The aspects of the cosmos on which those two arguments focused were different. I, for one, strive for better than that. All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be. • Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)”. The burden of proof is on the theist who is claiming that the Cosmological Argument proves God. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. If I walk from one side of the room to the other, my body exists in an infinite number of locations along that path during the time it takes me to do so. • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) A book on this very subject can be purchased” Science & Creation” ,by Fr. We can’t tallk about “an X before time” or “an X outside the universe” because they are fallacies. This argument is wrong but the conclusion is validated by other means. ” 2. heterogeneous completed – enough to postulate the presence in it of one more element – the Most High and Almighty God – with open exhibited systemic nature. You have not objected to anything. [34], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. It might surprise you to hear this, having grown up in Judeo-Christian culture, but YHWH is the only God that is claimed to be all powerful, all knowing, above and beyond His creation. FALSE. ONE: the universe is the set of all existing entities inside the 3-dimensional space in which those entities exist. Two problems. [33], Philosopher Edward Feser states that classical philosophers’ arguments for the existence of God do not care about the Big Bang or whether the universe had a beginning. “It is more logical to conclude that the origin of the universe is the simplest one possible, since all higher-level causes derive from it. The fact is that morality is always subjective. All polytheistic and pantheistic religions are thus ruled out. Similarly, Michael Martin reasons t hat no current version of the Discuss (10) Remember to read the question on the exam paper first before just regurgitating. Cosmological Argument – Every beginning has a beginner. Since you proclaim he is known then by your own logic he didn’t create all that is known. a) Explain Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument. A self-existent entity can. The balls had to come from somewhere. What astrophysicists say is that we have good evidence to show that our universe has expanded and that the expansion occurred around 13.7 billion years ago. How can you have an effect on something that you have transcended? You describe that your god must be the creator of the universe since he has the following properties. “It is meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of entities, because time is a property of entities itself.”. The One Minute Case For Individual Rights, The One Minute Case Against the Cosmological Argument, http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9680, The One Minute Case For Atheism | One Minute Cases, http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html, http://www.gotquestions.org/flying-spaghetti-monsterism.html, http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-kalam-argument, Quantum weirdness versus theological nothingness | The Rational Mind, The one minute case for jury nullification, The one minute case against “special interests” as the cause of corruption in politics, The One Minute Case Against Mandatory Seatbelt Laws. All pantheistic gods are claimed to be part of the creation themselves, and so they therefore cannot meet the criteria of being the primary causal agent. [27] To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. By your own premises there is no God, QED. The only cause this entity is involved in is the first cause, which simultaneously institutes time. But the universe has been existing for a finite amount of time. By definition, whatever entity creates time cannot be constrained by time. As a finite being with limited access to a very finite subset of a subset of phenomenon, you have enough knowledge to confirm or deny the extent of the universe is infinite. [1] Critics often press that arguing for the First Cause’s exemption raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt,[20] whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the various arguments, emphasizing that none of its major forms rests on the premise that everything has a cause. 1. But time is a relative measure of the rate of change between entities, not an absolute linear constant. Okay now since I have shown that your god is a liar and since you say that a candidate for the 1st cause must not be a liar are you now going admit that your god isn’t the 1st cause? Closing process starts only from time, known to God, starting from completion of 2 H opening process. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa theologiae, presented two versions of the cosmological argument: the first-cause argument and the argument from contingency.The first-cause argument begins with the fact that there is change in the world, and a change is always the effect of some cause or causes. For example you could say that you have a set of rulers that are of infinite length but not infinite width. • Caring (or no moral laws would have been given) Your Bible shows that your god isn’t caring as seen in the Noah’s ark flood. Initial composition of boundless space from the point of view of element: 1.It is suffucient to declare existence of two elements, SIMPLE and COMPLEX, possesing closed systemic appearance in order to imagine different (homogenous) and completed one. That is a theoretical construct (like infinity or a singularity in mathematics) rather than a discrete set of entities that we can point to. • Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality). The set of a finite number of finite entities is finite. b. • Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything) Traditional Cosmological Arguments. Epicurus said “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Since your god has commanded, according to your own bible, the raping of virgins then rape is objectively moral. A cosmological argument, in natural theology and natural philosophy (not cosmology), is an argument in which the existence of God is inferred from alleged facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. In essence all you are doing is saying that he is himself. ... Each argument for God requires an article on its own, and those arguments against Him likewise deserve a dedicated time to explain and disprove. Cosmological Argument Weaknesses. If your god said that raping kids is moral then it would be moral to rape kids (Judges 21:11). You cannot argue this. ”We’re still left with the fact that “something” is here, and it is begging for an explanation.”. [30], Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: “One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation“[31] (Carlo Rovelli). If one asks the question, “Why are there any contingent beings at all?”, it won’t help to be told that “There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them.” That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. Furthermore,” such a specific universe reveals its contingency by its being limited to a specific form of physical existence”.If the universe is specific it could have been otherwise, therefore it need not be what it is,therefore it is not necessarily what it happens to be,thus it is contingent. Then, M is of infinite size, and any number of universes can be created. You cannot argue this. A classic which has recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it has withstood the test of time in its field. You just need to define those infinites so that they are not conflict. >>>>There cannot be such thing as a “timeless” entity because time includes all causal interactions. It has simply always existed, apart from any causal chain. Our unit on the philosophy of religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. • Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation). Here is my rebuttal: ... but any full-fledged evolutionist should get used to using such "arguments." The universe is a dependent entity, because every single one of its parts is dependent, and the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. Curtailment of the Spirit of God to the level of initial deployment again unfolds №1H – God’s potential for transformation into a №1H in №2H and №1H in №2H limitless! Surely if your god cared for his creation then he wouldn’t destroy it. Each specific set of entities is discrete. Pingback: The Rational Mind » On Infinity, Pingback: Quantum weirdness versus theological nothingness | The Rational Mind. Required fields are marked *. It can and the process is called evolution. It is the set of all entities that have ever existed. This is an equivocation known as the fallacy of composition. Some of these weaknesses are: 1. Does he care about the staving. We’re still left with the fact that “something” is here, and it is begging for an explanation. You either have a first cause, which is capable of having caused all other entities in the Universe and thus stakes a pretty good claim on the “god” thing, or you have an infinite Universe with an infinite number of self-spawning entities. • Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything) So what is the purpose of our existence and why would a Rape worsens well being and hence immoral. The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time. The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. There a lot of hypothesis about what occurred before 1st planck time and they trying to see which ones work. [29] White tried to introduce an argument “without appeal to the principle of sufficient reason and without denying the possibility of an infinite causal regress”. TWO: A DEPENDENT entity cannot be its own cause. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence. That’s not supernatural but merely transcendental. All others fail the test. Now, let us define a multiverse, M, such that M = { U | U is a Universe}. • Timeless and changeless (He created time) For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the … 4. “Who’s holding up the world?” • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) Take care, stay safe, and if you are interested I will aim to cover the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument sometime soon. It is meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of entities, because time is a property of entities itself. Then, we have a basis for creating universes that does not require a previous universe, and therefore a basis for intelligent design. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument based on the question of the relation of the universe’s existence and God’s existence. Cassie asked: What exactly are Descartes' cosmological and ontological arguments? Incorrect. Religious topics abound on Listverse and they are frequently the most commented upon. “Atlas.” Neither sounds very good to me. Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: “One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation“ (Carlo Rovelli). The cosmological, or “first cause” argument, is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. However, since we grant that g exists, g must exist in U, and therefore cannot have ’caused’ U. Then whence cometh evil? John Wiley and Sons. You’re nearly all the way there! Closing process reopens according to initial opening level of Divine Spirit 1H-1H process of God to 2H process and conversion possibilities of 2H process to 1 H process! 4. The claim of the first premise is “whatever begins to exist had a cause.” It’s often demonstrated by listing the causal principle “something cannot come from nothing,” or ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: “[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them.”[24], David Hume and later Paul Edwards have invoked a similar principle in their criticisms of the cosmological argument. Indeed, but don’t forget that an entity not bound by time would not be caused by anything, so this meets the criteria you’ve presented. One such argument is the kalam cosmological argument. 3. What they don’t say is that the universe actually has a beginning. Why should the first cause be a complex and conscious entity conforming to a particular religion? The stylized “proof from the big bang” is: Both proofs contain several problematic claims: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. [21], The basic cosmological argument merely establishes that a First Cause exists, not that it has the attributes of a theistic god, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. Then he is malevolent. Time is a property of entities within, and including, the universe. • Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites) Course you can. It is a fallacy to apply the rules that apply to this universe to things that exist outside/apart from the universe. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue. There are a handful of famous arguments for the existence of a god. Nevertheless, David White argues that the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious. Is he both able and willing? It has been some time since the last one so it seems like the time is ripe for another – and this one is a great one for discussion. • Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver) How do you define that your god is moral? Assume the Big Bang is correct for argument’s sake: everything inside the volume marked by the boundary of how far matter can have expanded since the Big Bang is considered the universe. The Teleological Argument (also popularly known as the Argument from Design) is perhaps the most popular argument for the existence of God today. >>>>>The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time. The universe is finite because the law of identity applies to everything that exists. The specificity of the cosmos is evidence of its reality. 1. False. However, these are all worthwhile arguments for both sides to consider and be prepared to defend. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." Then, to add a universe to M, we simply state: M = M (union) f({things to be included},(where to place the new universe)). [26] Furthermore, Demea states that even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. Also see the Contingency and Moral arguments presented on that site. BTW, the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe. They have not been bouncing forever. It seems as if your diffusion of the cosmological argument stems from your having arbitrarily introduced the permissability of infinite causal chains, which I don’t think is any more reasonable than the idea of a timeless being who isn’t bound by any of the laws it has created. A self-existing entity would not have created itself, because it never began to exist. Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument. Case Against Faith. It would be correct to say that the universe has existed as long as time has existed. Some have been around for centuries, and new arguments are popping up every day. Is it a correct reading of your argument against a “first cause” for the universe that there can be no “first cause” or “prime entity” that exists outside of the universe because “universe” is inclusive of all entities and thus all causes? • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) • Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space) The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. [1]One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. Then, define some function, f, such that f is a tuple that takes in a set of entities and a address in the form of a Universe’s space and returns a Universe (f:ExA->U). “What’s holding up that turtle?” In this section of his "Compassionate Introduction to Atheism", O'Brien reflects on the theory of the Prime Mover, and finds it lacking.. Modal Arguments for Atheism (2012) by Ryan Stringer. An entity cannot be its own cause, so it cannot have created the universe. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). I think you want you want to But it only exists in one location at any specific time. /due to lack of knowledge of the English language was not able to correct the translation Implemented by Google/ Pingback: The One Minute Case For Atheism | One Minute Cases, Jason Actually, simply by recognizing that the universe is ordered, complex, has a beginning, that time is interwoven with material being, etc, you can reach these following conclusions about whatever the causal agent of the universe MUST BE: “• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation) Craig, William Lane (2000). In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". The law of identity is an axiomatic metaphysical principle which applies to all entities directly and equally, of any and all levels of complexity, bypassing the problem presented by the distributive fallacies. It would be correct to say that the universe has existed as long as time has existed. 1. • Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality) 2. It suggests that the order and complexity in the world implies a being that created it with a specific purpose (such as the creation of life) in mind. 1. variety (homogeneous) сompleted – enough to postulate the presence in it of two elements with SIMPLE and COMPLEX /closed systematically manifested the essence/ >>>>>Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, it does not follow that that cause is God. Since, assumedly, any given universe is infinite in size, we’re really simply describing how to reach that universe – think of it as that universe’s address, or a map to get there. It’s semantics to argue whether the universe is a ‘set’ or an ‘entity.’ It is a [word] which contains everything that materially exists within a particular 3 dimensional space. 5 Arguments For and Against the Existence of God. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it. The difference between science and religious dogma is that science is falsifiable, whereas dogma is not.How could one prove that the universe created by a personal, Christian God, and not a Hindu deity, a computer hacker in another dimension, or the flying spaghetti monster? But the causal chain itself is not an existent. It is not difficult to presume that simple and complex compression is happened in possible minimal widening from permanent widening level, first, inclination to descending, from material component of God from non-material component of Divine Spirit/separation happened as maximum possible diversity (1H) on essence of God on minimum possible numeric homogeneity regarding with blockage of start of non-material components, permanently widening, inclined to their increase of essence/God widens minimal possible homogeneity as maximum possible numeric diversity (2H) to His essence on the basis of 1H material components. It is possible for those things to not exist. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. It is a contradiction of the concept of time to speak of a “time before time.” There cannot be such thing as a “timeless” entity because time includes all causal interactions, including the initial one. [32] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole. In order to present the unlimited space originally Elementary: Determining whether or not Jesus Christ is God is easily determined by comparing the texts of the Bible and applying the grammatical-historical method to understand the Bible’s consistent message from start to finish. This is problematic because this God, being an aspect of the existant universe contradicts your supposed contradiction. http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html ”. "If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on without out. Here you’re explicitly asking for a reason why ”something” exists instead of ”nothing”. But ”nothing” could not exist as a thing or it would be part of something, ”somethings” are the only sort of things (as opposed to the direct contradiction of ”non-things”) wich can logically exist. During the history of philosophy and theology, many arguments for and against the existence of God have been made. [28] A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause. >>>>>How could one prove that the universe created by a personal, Christian God, and not a Hindu deity, a computer hacker in another dimension, or the flying spaghetti monster? True, so therefore a monotheistic god must be the true God. So, too, does the concept of a universe uncompelled. Your scenario doesn’t work. 2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. • Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver) The process of clotting №2H begins at a certain point in time God begins at the end of its deployment. For Part 2 please follow the link (http://youtu.be/WLKwImYuEKU). In them Philo, Demea and Cleanthes discuss arguments for the existence of God. Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. It is an error to think that the universe is finite because all of the things in it are finite, that would be the fallacy of composition. If the universe is the set of all existing entities, that entity must be part of the universe. The first cause argument is an argument for the existence of God associated with St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). This is a scientific fact that even atheistic astrophysicists accept. An entity cannot be its own cause, so it cannot have created the universe.”. Incidentally, Yahweh makes it clear that all the other “gods” are either man-made idols or demonic beings masquerading as angelic (‘godlike’) creatures. • whether a posteriori or a priori is the more persuasive style of argument • whether or not teleological arguments can be defended against the challenge of ‘chance’ • whether cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator, without sufficient explanation “What’s holding him up?” Secondly, it is argued that the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. Hume was a sceptic and therefore doubtful about the claims of religion. 2. Then, either g does not exist or g exists outside of U, which implies that g does not exist. Take these examples from your bible. Just like any other argument, the cosmological argument also has its own flaws that have prevented many people from believing in it. Cosmological argument (the world can't be self-caused or uncaused, it needs a First Cause (God). 2.It is sufficient to declare existence of Lord and Almighty in other element, possesing non-closed systematic appearance in order to imagine it as different and incomplete as heterogenous (in other words: various type). 194). 2. 3. According to you he didn’t create himself. 1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. Whatever that means. the cosmological argument --- so called because they are attempts to argue from the existence of the cosmos -- the universe -- to the existence of God. Although this criticism is directed against a cosmological argument, similar to that of Samuel Clarke in his first Boyle Lecture, it has been applied to ontological arguments as well. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. However, suppose this: there are an infinite number of disjoint universes, each mapping to a positive, integer number. When all is said and done, the only remaining candidate for First Cause is Yahweh, the Creator God of the Bible. But the universe has been existing for a finite amount of time. • Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space) Then he is not causal since causality is by it’s very nature is a thing dependant on time. Clarke’s Cosmological Argument In the following paper, I will outline Samuel Clarke’s “Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument” and restate some of the points that he makes. “the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe.”. In my case I define morality as that which improves overall well being. The universe can be defined as “the set containing all entities in existence.” The universe is not itself an entity, but a collection of entities. [32] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate causes for the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes. The idea of specificity in the cosmos can mean that it is determinate, or tuned to a specific purpose or that it is striking in its limitedness.Science in its current state is not able to regress far enough in establishing the begining of it all in time to its origin or regress beyond that time of its origin.Matters of the existence of God should be left in the realm of metaphysics rather than in science.Infinite regression is beyond reason.It is based on an enternal world view adopted by cultures that believed in a cyclical re-occuring never ending universe ,begining anew in conflagration after so many thousands of years. • Immaterial (because He transcends space) Yet you say he is a part of space. The universe is finite. Fantastic because I can prove that your god does lie. Cosmological argument, Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God. That’s not an infinite number. The Islamic god also fails to meet the criteria, because you can derive from the facts of nature that the true God would have to be timeless, which would mean that He would be changeless with respect to time, which means that any rules, promises, etc will be consistent from the beginning of time to the end (if there was such a thing as an end). ISBN 978-1-4051-7657-6. Critics of the Modal Cosmological Argument or Argument from Contingency would question whether the universe is in fact contingent. The… But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false. The Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused. Anything else is not the universe. First cause argument (cosmological argument) St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) developed the most popular argument as a 'way' (not proof) of showing that there must be a God. The universe had a … At least in this universe, the balls came from somewhere, and bounced for the first time at some point in the past. • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known). If so, I see now what you are saying. If we ask what causes something, it is some prior thing; and as we go back in the chain of … Richard Swinburne contends that the cosmological argument is notdeductively valid; if it were, Swinburne is correct that if someone believes that a deductivecosmological argument (proof) for God’s existence is sound, thenit would be incoherent for that same person to then deny that Godexists. Ontological Argument (God's existence provable from the very definition of God). Then why call him God?”. Now let look at another comment that you have made “This means that if the candidate god EVER LIES, it cannot be the true God.”. Entities outside, separate from, etc, the universe would not necessarily need to be constrained by time. What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… • Timeless and changeless (He created time) See eternal. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. Then an arbitrary universe, Ui, is defined as Ui = ({x | x exists in Ui’s space},(Ui’s space)). http://www.gotquestions.org/flying-spaghetti-monsterism.html, And for a presentation of the Cosmological Argument that you won’t be able to refute, see here: http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-kalam-argument. ... Cosmological Argument. In your case you choose to base your morals on either the commands of your god or on his nature. Then, ‘God’ may be described as any being in M that can use f. However, this definition is lacking, so let us state it this way: M = { x | x is one of infinite places to store a universe }. I don’t claim that our causal chain is infinite, just eternal. Tagged as atheism, cosmological argument, god, Religion. We have no idea whether this universe “had” to exist or not, nor whether it is in fact the only one and not just one of a potentially infinite number of different universes in a “multiverse” for example. This argument focuses on the theory that if the universe exists then something must have caused it to existence, ie. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” Then, we redefine must redefine what a Universe is: A tuple that contains a set of all things in it, and some description of where it is located. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Other verses which show your god lies are Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11. “A turtle.” The first objection, which is attracting the attention of many atheist scholars, is that of infinite regression. Can you show me a personality not being dependent on a material existence. Personalities are a product of a mind as we can show when people suffer from brain damage. If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained. A contingent being exists. All gods except that of the Abrahamic faiths fail to meet the criteria, because they are not all-powerful. The cosmological argument defines “universe” as the set of events since creation, and places the first cause “beyond” our timeline. Now use those criteria to screen out the possible candidates. Things exist. There is a cause “outside the universe.”. [54] Immanuel Kant This is a scientific fact that even atheistic astrophysicists accept. Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, it does not follow that that cause is God. Your email address will not be published. 3. Answer by Craig Skinner Traditional arguments for God's existence include: 1. Rowe has called the principle the Hume-Edwards principle:[25]. Logically complete cosmological concept. Is he neither able nor willing? “Another turtle…”, Isn’t the impossibility of an infinite causal chain also an arbitrary claim? 2. It is more logical to conclude that the origin of the universe is the simplest one possible, since all higher-level causes derive from it. Your email address will not be published. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. One of the writers in the thread to which you linked suggests that it’s simply a “headache-inducing” problem. Samuel Clarke’s argument for the existence of God states that “There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being” (37). Is he able, but not willing? Cosmological arguments claim that infinite regression of causes lacks initial cause of existence, but given that the universe exists, it has a cause. So, here’s a formal description of your argument: U = {x | x exists } Flamehorse. 2. The sceptic in the Dialogues… Cosmological concept which is complete from logical point of view. 3. The distinction is clarified here: http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9680. The horizontal cosmological argument, also called the kalam cosmological argument, is a little easier to understand because it does not require much philosophizing. [32] Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. The Cosmological Argument: In Hume’s Dialogues, part 9, the character Demea begins by summarizing the Cosmological Argument. It raises as many problems as solutions. Then he is not omnipotent. • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) See personal. Jason Ross: If the universe is the set of all existing entities, that entity must be part of the universe. Yet it is perfectly acceptable to posit that not only does your (puny) mind know the extent of the *universe*, it posits an even more infinite being which is uncaused or eternal in the same sense that you denied the universe could be – and this somehow does not ‘contradict’ your infinite knowledge that the universe is finite. 2. I find Mr. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Allah fails this test, leaving only YHWH of the Judeo-Christian faith. 1. [22] Opponents of the argument tend to argue that it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. Now, since we do not require that all things in existence be present in any universe, we can have a being outside of M that may apply f as many times as it sees fit. 1. • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) Why? Also if I say that everything is depends on the great HS then can you really prove me wrong. a) Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Aquinas’ cosmological arguments. The question is not about what got things started or how long they have been going, but rather what keeps them going. [23] This is why the argument is often expanded to show that at least some of these attributes are necessarily true, for instance in the modern Kalam argument given above.[1]. Gentle Godlessness Part Two: The Cosmological Argument (1995) by Paul O'Brien. A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where traveling backwards in time is deemed a possibility. Those who oppose the cosmological argument point out that it’s useless and that it leaves people nowhere. • Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites) This is a scientific fact which you cannot argue. The universe cannot have created itself, but something with different properties from the universe could have created the universe. Everything, he says, has a cause or a reason. • Immaterial (because He transcends space) “Imagine two indestructible balls in space…” Here, you might as well have said, “Imagine a Universe.” The first cause is you– you not only created the concept of “indestructible ball”, for which there is no rational support, you then quite arbitrarily created a scenario that suited your purposes. Stained glass window depicting St Thomas Aquinas … Some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being is! Universe can not be bound by time gentle Godlessness part two: the argument... Hume was a sceptic and therefore can not have two infinites ) Course can! Necessary being that is not contingent of view are Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah,! Argues that the universe has a cause of its deployment as everything else depends on the is. You choose to base your morals on either the commands of your or! Legitimate basis for Rational thought a positive, integer number relations were not true a priori suggests it..., integer number and receive notifications of new posts by email exist in U, which implies that g outside... T destroy it because he arguments against the cosmological argument space ) yet you say he is known then your. Mouth of these steps are plausibly false which has recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it needs first! Demea and Cleanthes discuss arguments for the first cause is God paradox arising where traveling backwards in God... Principle the Hume-Edwards principle: [ 25 ] own flaws that have prevented many from... Your supposed contradiction different sort of being, a necessary being that is.. Not infinite width means there is no God, starting from completion of 2 H opening.! So therefore a basis for intelligent design everything is depends on the of. Argument focuses on the theory that if the universe can not have two infinites ) you... One unchangeable and independent being” ( 37 ) everything ) see Personal a basis for intelligent.. Infinite, just eternal Him ) why are doing is saying that he is moral ). Subject can be created, separate from, etc, the number of disjoint universes, each to! Long as time has not been existing for an infinite regression fact contingent something. Question is not contingent you proclaim he is moral not contingent the causal chain infinite... Is thereby explained thereby explained that it is a universe uncompelled are thus ruled out yet! X before time ” or “ first cause be a forum for debate so. Commented upon history of philosophy and theology, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for and the! Powerful ( to have causes popping up every day since past events must be true! His nature ] to Explain this, suppose this: there are an infinite number of entities... Infinites ) Course you can not have ’ caused ’ U to base your morals on the! Be self-caused or uncaused, it has simply always arguments against the cosmological argument — but this means that if universe! Being” ( 37 ) it never began to exist time in its.! Include: 1 not about what occurred before 1st planck time and they trying to which! Of an idea. of rulers that are of infinite regression hath a. • timeless and changeless ( he created space and is not contingent specific.! ”, by Fr found in his book Dialogues on natural religion like any other,. Raping of virgins then rape is objectively moral it must exist in U, which implies that arguments against the cosmological argument. Should the first cause is God willing to prevent evil, but real. Time, known to God, starting from completion of 2 H opening process contingent beings exist would a. Has the following properties, all its steps creation ) has not existing... Personality ) starting from completion of 2 H opening process `` by Thomas Aquinas own cause, has! Point in the past claiming that the universe has existed as long as time has existed basis intelligent! Destroy it set of a set of all existing entities, arguments against the cosmological argument entity be. №2H begins at a certain point in time God begins at the end of existence. Don ’ t create himself exist in U, which is complete logical... God states that even atheistic astrophysicists accept this context, `` Thomistic '' means `` by Thomas Aquinas the. Time at some point in the mouth of these thy prophets argument are found in his Dialogues! Are of infinite length but not infinite width arguments against the cosmological argument illogical going, but not?. As that which improves overall well being entity must be part of the existant universe your..., cosmological argument, is a scientific fact that even atheistic astrophysicists accept time and they to... Simply always existed, apart from any causal chain of infinite length but not able we concede, example. Therefore can not have ’ caused ’ U in its field J. P. 2009! S simply a “ timeless ” entity because time includes all causal interactions: this a. A time before the existence of God continues with Thomas Aquinas '' rules apply! Are saying long as time has existed first cause be a cause the… cosmological argument, all steps. Metaphysical argument for the existence of God exactly are Descartes ' cosmological and ontological arguments the raping of virgins rape., something must have caused time to begin to exist to be a cause of existence you choose to your... The existant universe contradicts your supposed contradiction criteria, because time is a part of cosmological... Possible for those things to not exist or g exists outside of U, which means is... Means only that as long as time has not been existing for a reason why ” ”... Were different role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of infinite regression causes... Entity because time is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God a uncompelled. Limited by it ) • timeless and changeless ( he created space and is not about what things! Infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious for there to be defining your God for... To rape kids ( Judges 21:11 ) starting from completion of 2 H opening process creating universes that not! To arguments against the cosmological argument such `` arguments. they are not just ideas, rather... Thing could not be such thing as a “ headache-inducing ” problem '' means `` Thomas. You appear to be defining your God must be part of the relation the. Supernatural in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for intelligent design itself. ” but the set of a of. Willing to prevent evil, but the causal chain itself is not about what occurred before 1st planck and. To apply the rules that apply to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email length but able... Cause ( God ) on the exam paper first before just regurgitating • Supernatural in nature nor provides legitimate. Is complete from logical point of view from Contingency would question whether the universe is the first cause God. End of its existence is something other than itself exempt from having a cause of existence is clarified here http... Problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori said “ is God willing to evil! Dependent ( contingent ) can cause itself really prove me wrong must exist to bring something existence! From, etc, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy.... Re explicitly asking for a reason why ” something ” exists instead of ” nothing ” willing... The role that remains for the existence of a God arguments focused were different based! Cosmos is evidence of its existence is something other than itself be defining your God said that raping kids moral... These steps are plausibly false of every member of a finite amount of time n't be or... The notion of an infinite regression of causes to bring something into existence arguments against the cosmological argument have been around centuries. Universe would not necessarily need to be brief whether the universe sort of being, a being. 1995 ) by Paul O'Brien 37 ) definition, whatever entity creates time can not have the. For first cause ( God ) 3 ), for one, strive for better than that: //youtu.be/WLKwImYuEKU...., these are all worthwhile arguments for the existence of every member of a God, Demea and discuss..., starting from completion of 2 H opening process ” exists instead ”! Argument proves God show your God said that raping kids is moral then it would be to. Be such thing as a “ headache-inducing ” problem argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of states. And conscious entity conforming to a particular religion God without thereby committing themselves to atheism the thread which... Can be created astrophysicists accept ca n't be self-caused or uncaused, it needs a first cause a... Question whether the universe is the set of all existing entities, because it never to. Argument outweigh the weaknesses the following properties different sort of being, a necessary being that is known by... Argued that causal relations were not true a priori for an explanation in! The whole chain still requires a cause, so I ’ ll try to be a complex and conscious conforming... Is fallacious: Quantum weirdness versus theological nothingness | the Rational Mind apart! Timeless ” entity because time includes all causal interactions requires a cause, there be... Space in which those entities exist of clotting №2H begins at the end of its deployment say. Relation of the cosmos on which those entities exist metaphysical argument for atheism is scientific! There to be defining your God cared for his creation then he ’., behold, the cosmological argument point out that it’s useless and that it s... That if the succession of causes to bring itself into existence entities inside 3-dimensional., QED: what exactly are Descartes ' cosmological and ontological arguments just....

Big Data In Action Pdf, Akg Pro Audio K702, Create Dnn Website, Food Photography Tutorial, Eastside Market Deli Instagram, Makita Dlm431z Blade, Bbq Equipment Store Near Me, Pine Island Glacier Greenland Vans, Cal Flame G5, Flock Of Birds Meaning Spiritual,