Monday, July 23, 2007

Another problem with the Cosmological Argument.

The Cosmological Argument is regularly trotted out by the faithful as though it is some sort of proof of the existence of a god. It's also commonly referred to as one of the below:


  • First Mover

  • First Cause

  • Argument from Universal Causation



It was first posited by Plato and later by Aristotle, but both stated caveats - mainly the requirement of another coexistent substance for the first mover to organise. But that's another story. The argument, as it is offered today, goes something like this:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe had a cause.


This to me sounds quite reasonable up to this point, although I wouldn't say I support the idea. I prefer to wait for relevant evidence. Theists then plug this line on the end of it:

God must have been the first cause – the uncaused cause.


There are numerous problems with this way of thinking such as the fact that the first cause violates the entire premise for the argument and that even if we accept a first cause, which is by no means necessary if we consider an eternally existing loop, then we are still left no reason whatsoever to consider that first cause to be a god or in anyway intelligent. I'm not going to go into this now as the argument is old and no one knows the answer – no one yet, and we may never. Instead I'd like to focus on how theists tend to view this.

First of all, in the theist view, there is a god. This god has existed for eternity. This is actually not compatible with our modern understanding of space-time since the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of the dimension of time and thus there was no eternity before the universe, but let's just accept for now, for purely hypothetical exploration, that time extended back before its own emergence.

So in the theistic view we have a god existing uniquely, with no other anything (remember that both Plato and Aristotle also required a coexistent substance along with the First Cause for it to manipulate), for eternity and then at some point creating this universe. This demands the question, why? Why sit around for eternity and then without any other stimulus, and no internal stimulus either as the omniscient nature of god means absolutely no possibility of decision making or thought, suddenly choose that moment to create a universe? It's a big problem because it requires a cause. It requires a motivation that existed at that moment and no other. It requires a cause to motivate god to pick that particular instant to kick the whole thing off after sulking around for eternity.

The argument is again victim of its own constraints. Suddenly we do not require just one First Cause but two.

Theists will say god chose to do it at that time, but god cannot choose – see my omniscience post. So god had to have a reason; a reason that cannot be internal to it since god is unchanging. Furthermore that motivational cause that selected that exact moment to create the universe also had to have a cause. And that cause would have needed a cause also. It becomes yet another infinite regress.

The result is that if we posit a god as a first cause what we actually end up with, when looking at the expansion of causes away from the point of creation, either from the post or pre-creation side, is an hour glass appearance of ever expanding causes crimped to one cause at the point of creation, with the only difference being that everything pre-creation, even if we accept god as a first cause, still needs another infinite regresses of non-god causes to push him into action.

An ideal candidate for Ockham's Razor, I think.

The Cosmological Argument is not at this time answerable but there really is absolutely no reason to conclude that even if there is a first cause, which is unknown and thinking there is may simply be a fault of our limited and linear perception of time, that it must be a god. In fact, positing a god fails to solve the problem and in fact exaggerates it if we are to also posit that this first cause is omniscient. I strongly suspect, and I will examine the logic in the near future, that giving this first cause any definable property whatsoever breaks the argument. Even if it does not, it might just as easily be the universe itself or any infinite number of other options that are the first cause. But if we do posit an omniscient and eternal god then that god needs a reason to select one moment in eternity to kick it off and not any other moment. God sitting around for eternity and then just making a decision just doesn't work – it defies his alleged omniscience.

That requires that god is either not omniscient or not eternal or is neither. Once again, a theistic logical claim for proof of the existence of god actually turns out to be the complete opposite, even when we allow the universe wide leeway of no evidence, no reason and no exclusion of equally baseless hypotheses.

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

8 comments:

Rhology said...

CD, you have not demonstrated the ability w/in the last 3 weeks that I've been frequenting your blog to keep your personal feelings out of the rational discourse. Here it sets the theme for your entire argument. It's amazing.

Here it is:

This demands the question, why? Why sit around for eternity and then without any other stimulus, and no internal stimulus either as the omniscient nature of god means absolutely no possibility of decision making or thought

And since you don't know the answer, you conclude it's impossible that it could be so. That's great stuff. One wonders why you even bother to take any education w/ an attitude like that.

Theists will say god chose to do it at that time, but god cannot choose – see my omniscience post.

By all means, whoever's reading this, read CD's post and the ensuing discussion to see how well CD sustained that argument in the face of questioning.

It becomes yet another infinite regress.

And yet that's one of the reasons the Cosmological Arg is compelling - the theist escapes the conundrum while the atheist remains ensnared in it.
You OTOH choose either an infinite regress or the spontaneous generation of matter, energy, and time out of nothingness just b/c you *don't like* the idea of a god, finding it distasteful. I don't understand your attraction towards throwing personal feelings in the way of reason. That's not the way *I'd* do it, I'm just saying.

chooseDoubt said...

Hi Rhology,

You are missing the argument, which surprises me since it comes straight from your religions understanding of god.

God is and always has been in the perfect state of being.

God therefore cannot change as any change would denote a change in “his” state of being. Since perfection is an absolute state this is not possible.

For a decision to be made to begin a universe at any moment there must be a change in state, for example “I am not going to create a universe right now” to “I am going to create a universe right now”.

That’s not personal, it’s logic.

There’s other ways to express the same which I have already done in the post. But let’s try to clarify again.

God sits around for an eternity. At a specific moment god becomes the first cause by initiating the universe. For that to happen then god needs to change from a state of “I’m not going to create a universe right now” to a state of “I am going to create a universe right now”. There must be a reason to select one moment for creation of a universe instead of any of the infinite others that have already passed. That reason cannot come from within god since god is unchanging. The reason must be external which requires therefore a second first cause- an external contingency on which the moment of creation is dependent. That external contingency requires a cause, and we hit infinite regress.

So, no, this argument does not protect you from infinite regress.

Thanks to physics we can appreciate that the Big Bang was the beginning of time and thus no infinite regress is required in an atheistic model. An atheistic model is free to admit that we really do not know the answer, which is completely inline with our current understanding, to how the universe came from nothing or even if it did. It is only the theists that are asserting an ultimate answer, a logically faulty one as demonstrated above, without any supporting evidence or reason to select any specific assertion above the many thousands of others that have been asserted by alternate brand theists throughout history.

If that appears to be my emotion to you then I contend that you are simply do not understand the logic and must deny it, although without any counter argument, just as you deny other logically coherent arguments such as evolution.

Rhology said...

Hey CD,


God is and always has been in the perfect state of being.
Yes.

God therefore cannot change as any change would denote a change in “his” state of being.
Yes.

For a decision to be made to begin a universe at any moment there must be a change in state, for example “I am not going to create a universe right now” to “I am going to create a universe right now”.
No.
How could a being *OUTSIDE TIME* "change"? That is logically impossible, and thus you burn a strawman.

At a specific moment god becomes the first cause
There's no "specific moment" w/o time.
Strike 2.

For that to happen then god needs to change from a state of “I’m not going to create a universe right now” to a state of “I am going to create a universe right now”.
Not if it was His will to create the universe from eternity past. Why would He need to "change" to do that?

There must be a reason to select one moment for creation of a universe instead of any of the infinite others that have already passed.
Again, there's no time. All this talk about "moments" and "infinite others" is baseless for that reason. Try to follow me here.


this argument does not protect you from infinite regress.
For the sake of argument, we'll say it didn't.
Is infinite regress logically impossible?


we can appreciate that the Big Bang was the beginning of time
I'd agree w/ that.


thus no infinite regress is required in an atheistic model.
OK, then you're stuck w/ the other logical impossibility of matter, time, and energy spontaneously generating out of total nothingness. It's like the Darwinian leap from inorganic to organic matter (ie, spontaneous generation), only more drastic.

It is only the theists that are asserting an ultimate answer,

Yes, b/c apparently we're some of the only ones w/ whom logically impossible explanations of origins don't sit well.

If that appears to be my emotion to you

I say that b/c you keep emoting: "If ***I*** don't get it, it's NOT POSSIBLE!!!!! BELIEVE ME!!!!"
Not my fault.

Peace,
Rhology

chooseDoubt said...

Hi Rhology,

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that a conversation about nonsense should degenerate into it, but lets’ try again to clear things up.

It doesn’t matter if god is outside of time. You agree that god can’t change - a logical restriction of having to be eternally in the perfect state. So if god changes from a state of “I’m not going to create the universe” to “I’ve created the universe” then he’s changed which is forbidden by the definition of god and the logic applied to that definition. It’s another unbeatable problem for your side I’m afraid.

It’s really that simple.

Also, if god is outside of time, which is itself meaningless, how can god have existed for eternity? Eternity is an infinite measure of time and that means god must have existed in all time. Otherwise, god as never existed within the dimension of time and that means god has never existed.

I don’t want to get into physics but space-time is just a collection of 4 dimensions - well, actually more, current models supporting 10 (string theory) or 11 (M-Theory). Dimensions are not magical places like they are represented in fiction; they are just scales really, at right angles to each other. We can only think effectively in 3 dimensions and to a far more limited degree in 4 – the fourth being time. Space-time is all the dimensions together.

This outside time business would just mean that god has no profile and no movement in the dimension of time and since time is the scale against which change is occurs again we are stuck with god being unchanging, which fits with this theoretical perfect state but again forbids any alteration to that state. God cannot change state. So god cannot change from a state of not having created the universe to having created it and that means god, or at least a god that is outside time, cannot have created the universe. If god is not outside time then you are then stuck with my original arguments.

Sorry, but I think sooner or later you’re just going to have to face up to the fact that god is a nonsense idea precluded already by our limited yet rapidly increasing knowledge of reality. It’s that or waste your life trying to convince others of something which simply isn’t true. It doesn’t have to be a bad thing to be honest and face that realisation.

Look, there are a couple of really simple things you can do. First off, think about the origins of the bible. Is it a reliable source? The clear answer is no. The history of the book, or I should say compendium, is quite well documented and there are many external sources of evidence to compare it against and the comparison does not come out favourably.

Secondly, read the thing. Two versions of creation with different orders and different events. How long did the flood last? Was it 40 days or 150 days? The Bible states both.
Is slavery right or wrong? Jesus says it’s fine.

Is a woman simply the property of a man? If you think not, then why is “wife” lumped in with house, ox and the rest of the man's property in the commandment.

How many different versions did Jesus give when he said “I tell you the truth” and then gave different lists of requirements to get into heaven?

Why is there absolutely no evidence for Moses, the exodus, a global flood, etc, and why do so many other millions of other pieces of evidence so firmly contradict these myths?

Is the morality of the OT really something you think shows a loving and compassionate god? Does it even appear to be a wise god?

Is it really agreeable to you that god punishes successive generations and complete strangers for disagreements with one person? If you picture anyone else taking the same actions is still good? If not, then why is it good that god does it?

Why is there no mention whatsoever in the OT that when people die they get to go to heaven if they’re good?

Why did Jesus need to climb the mountain to see all the nations of the world since when he got to the top he’s going to have to use magic to see them anyway thanks to the fact the earth is a sphere?

Why doesn’t Jesus answer all of your prayers when he’s promised repeatedly that he will?

Why didn’t Jesus remember the Ten Commandments in their entirety?

Why are two different lineages given for Jesus’ birth?

Why do so many other myths that predate the Jesus myth share so many similarities? Virgin births, resurrections, the list is huge.

Why, if Moses wrote the Pentateuch does he contradict himself and speak of himself in the third person?

How did he manage to write about his own death and events afterwards?

Did Pharaoh's wizards actually turn their staffs into snakes?

Why create the entire rest of that immensely huge universe?

In fact, why create any of it?

Part of a plan? Who needs a plan when you’re omnipotent? The end result is immediately available but that doesn’t change the even bigger problem of what can god possibly want? He’s god, he knows everything, can do anything, so what can he want?

What about theodicy? It really does boil down to he can’t banish evil or doesn’t want to banish evil – it really is that simple.

Why not choose Islam?

Why not choose Judaism or Hinduism or anythingism? None of them have anything more than pretty messed up, old and fantastically backward claims to make.

What’s the difference really between your personal relationship with Jesus and the Pope’s personal relationship with Jesus? It’s not enough to just say “the Pope is demonic”. He believes he’s got this relationship with Jesus and possible even that Jesus talks to him. How can you differentiate your belief from his? You’ll say he’s being demonically influenced but how can you really be sure that he’s not right and you’re not the one being demonically influenced?

What evidence is there in this world for any intervention of the supernatural? There’s none, that’s how much.

How come prayer is exactly as effective for all faiths?

There are so many questions. I don’t want you to answer the above to me. I’m just suggesting that if you answer them you look over your answers again and again and again and spot the contradictions between them and how not one single one of them will have any evidence to support a belief in the belief you hold. Not one of them will have a connection to reality that you can demonstrate.

You seem like a nice guy and smart enough. At the very least read some of the authors I’ve suggested – waste your time. Make an honest inquiry instead of a one sided affirmation.

What I’m basically saying is question everything. How can it be wrong to use your mind and question everything freely?

As I said, I don’t want a reply to all of this. I already know the formulaic answers. They answer nothing – that’s the whole problem.

Wishing you the best,

CD.

Rhology said...

Hi CD,

It looks like most of this last comment is irrelevant to the topic at hand. That says a lot.

It doesn’t matter if god is outside of time.

Are we engaging in an assertion contest? It matters b/c you keep making arguments that assume God is INSIDE time. I point out to you that you're not arguing against the God of the Bible (TGOTB). Again, if you want to attack some finite godist deity, go ahead; I'll join you. Just don't pretend you're critiquing Christian belief.

So if god changes from a state of “I’m not going to create the universe” to “I’ve created the universe” then he’s changed

I didn't realise that DOING something CHANGES the being. Being is being, doing is doing.
BTW, 'change' implies time. You're doing it again.

if god is outside of time, which is itself meaningless, how can god have existed for eternity?

We have to have some way of stating it. It's better than your offerings, which have boiled down to "God is inside time."

This outside time business would just mean that god has no profile and no movement in the dimension of time and since time is the scale against which change is occurs again we are stuck with god being unchanging

You're making progress.

which fits with this theoretical perfect state but again forbids any alteration to that state. God cannot change state.

Yes, keep going, you're doing well.

So god cannot change from a state of not having created the universe to having created it

Blunder! Good attempt, though - you were on your way.
No one is claiming that God changed states. He *DID* something.

First off, think about the origins of the bible. Is it a reliable source? The clear answer is no.

Now you go off on a dozen irrelevant tangents and make some of the same ol' tired arguments. I don't think you care to seek out the answers. These USED to bother me until I did a little reading. Hopefully you'll decide to do so as well. But a guy like me only has so much time. If you want recommendations, let me know.

Peace,
Rhology

Anonymous said...

GOD FOR A BETTER NAME WAS HERE FIRST HENCE AS HUMANS BE GUESTS AS GUESTS WE MUST SHOW RESPECT..GOD CAN NOT IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE BE KNOWN UNLESS THROUGH WORDS AS TO GIVING FEELINGS THROUGH EMOTIONS. TO ACCEPT UNEXPLAINABLE FOR SOME SIMPLY TOO TAXING ..HENCE....THE REASONING *GOD LIVES IN A PLACE CALLED HEAVEN BLAH BLAH BLA ...IF PEOPLE AT PRESENT TIMES HAPPY AS CONTENT WITH SUCH EXPLANATION..FOR OTHERS THIS NOT THE CASE THEY BE LOOKING FOR CONCRETE ANSWERS AS SUCH THIS MUST BE RESPECTED ..... HOWEVER..... THERE ALWAYS BE AN HOWEVER.... POLITICIANS ALWAYS FALL BACK ON A HOWEVER ..IN THE BEGINING HOWEVER ..APART FROM SUCH ORIGINAL HOWEVER AS THE NOW FOLLOWING HOWEVER,BEFORE HOWEVER EVER MENTIONED,CONCRETE ANSWERS BE NOT OBBJECTONABLE,THE PROBLEM BE T CAPABILITY OF HAVING THE REQUIERED WISDOM THAT THERE BE FURTHER DEPTH IN UNDERSTANDING AS EXPERIENCE. ***********************************AT SUCH PRESENT TIMES THE JURY OUT THERE BE NO DOUBT HUMANITY NEEDING FURTHER DEPTH IN THE MYSTERIOUS OF THE UNIVERSE COMPLEXITIES OF THE BRAIN...YET SUCH BE BENIFICIAL OR MORE HANDICAP AT PRESENT STATE OF AWARENES...OWN OPINION IS HUMANITY BE READY, YET I HAVING CONCERN FURTHER KNOWLEDGE MISINTERPRETATED AS MISUSED LEADING TO A SITUATION PROGRESS NOT INDIVIDUAL EFFORT... GIVE NOT ON A SOUND BASIS THROUGH WHAT NOW TERMED MODERN FUNDEMENTAL DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS,SUCH THEY SOCIAL ECONOMIC AS SPIRITUAL,INDIVIDUAL HAVING THE RIGHTS BEING EQUALITY SERVED AS EQUAL NEEDS JUSTIFIED. ***********************************WELL IT BE THE JURY OUT ON THE MATTER IT BEING A FIERCE DEBATE ATHEIST HUMANIST BOTANIST SEXUAL PREIDITORS,HOLLYWOOD MOGULS, JEWS CAMPAIGNING 24/7 EVER WILLING TO SACRIFICE THEIR LIFES THAT THERE BE AN PALESTINIAN STATE, TOBBACO COMPANIES CLAIMING PEOPLE HAVE FREE CHOICE,BEING TOBACCO'S ADDED CHEMICALS NOT ADDICTIVE, SMOKING BE A FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT,THE WHOLE KIT AND CABOUDLE OF HUMANITY AT A CROSSROADS ...BE IT HOLDING HANDS TAKING SAME PATH UNTOWARD OUR ONE TRUE DESTINATION...OR THE BUILDING OF MORE TOBACCO PRODUCING PLANT AS EVER EVER MORE ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ON PALESTINIAN LAND...WHOM KNOWS THE OUTCOME OF ONGOING DEBATE,OAS TO HUMANITIES FUTURE DIRECTION,THE SANE HAVING LONG SINCE GIVEN UP AS GONE HOME.LEFT IN THE FIGHT BE THE POLITICIANS,THE CRIMINALLY INSANE, BOSSES OF TOBACCO COMPANIES, THE HALFBAKED LEADERS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. ALL CLAIMING EACH BEING FULLY QUALIFIED IN LEADING HUMANITIES FUTURE GENERATIONS...

Paul said...

Hi
You don't seem to know the cosmological argument at all. Eternity is not endless time. God can't sit around in time. The cosmological argument does not require a physical creation. You are actually describing the Kalam argument developed these days by Craig. The real cosmological argument which can allow an eternal cosmos does not have the difficulties you have described. Thanks

Paul

Anonymous said...

Its not that we don't "like" the idea of god, its that we see no evidence for it, its hardly the reasonable position . Your position suffers from infinite regression more than ours (I suggest you actually read up on the big bang) and CD makes very strong points, god is omnicient, therefore he cannot choose, so to decide to start the universe now instead of later must be influenced by an outside cause, a point you clearly missed. I suggest re-reading this article.