Cosmological argument for God

[JoshB]

I would like to begin by saying that I am not taking sides on this matter. This logic is just an argument for the existence of some sort of eternal being that started the universe. I feel that it is relevant enough to bring up in forum.

This cosmological argument comes from "Philosophy for Dummies" by Tom Morris.

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has explanation.

2. The existence of the universe is either
A) unintelligible or

B) has an explanation

3. No rational person can accept 2-a.

4. A rational person must accept 2-b: The universe has an explanation.

5. There are only three kinds of explanation:
A) Scientific: Explanations of the form C+L->E (independent initial physical
Conditions, plus relevant Laws, yield the Event explained)

B) Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers, and intentions of
some personal agent

C) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its
existence or qualities.

6. The explanation for the existence of the universe cannot be essential (The
universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.)

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific.
(There cannot be initial physical conditions and laws independent or outside
of what is to be explained)

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but some sort of God could create an entire universe.

10. Therefore, a rational person should believe that there is a God.

Im just quoting the book. I want the community to now critique this logic. Let me repeat: CRITIQUE THIS LOGIC.

[LiamOS]

3. No rational person can accept 2-a.

No, no rational person can immediately exclude it. One would have to ask by what logic does he conclude that the universe, as an entity, is intelligible

6. The explanation for the existence of the universe cannot be essential (The
universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.)

This is a question for theoretical physicists, not philosophers. As such, I feel the conclusion is not really based in fact.

7. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can't be scientific.

Again, you'd need a few more years of awesome theoretical physics work to determine that.

8. A rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

Given my previous statements, I think it follows that this is unwarranted, and I think it would even be unwarranted without them.

10. Therefore, a rational person should believe that there is a God.

A rational person who makes baseless assumptions about the universe.

I don't know how a more philosophical mind will treat this, but I don't think it holds.

[McCulloch]

I got stuck on 3.
Why is it that no rational person can accept that the universe itself has no knowable explanation for its existence?

[JoshB]

I got stuck on 3.
Why is it that no rational person can accept that the universe itself has no knowable explanation for its existence?

A rational person (if rational) doesn't think that things could even possibly happen without an explanation. So says the book.

(Yes, all I will do is represent the book. This does not mean I agree with it)

No, no rational person can immediately exclude it. One would have to ask by what logic does he conclude that the universe, as an entity, is intelligible

The Book: Rationality itself forbids the acceptance of 2-a. It is in the essential nature of rationality to expect and seek explanations everywhere they can possibly be sought.

Remember, this applies solely to those who claim to be rationalists. Of course I doubt a lot of people want to on the irrational spectrum.

This is a question for theoretical physicists, not philosophers. As such, I feel the conclusion is not really based in fact.

The Book: It is the consensus of contemporary physicists that is initial conditions and laws in the Big Bang had been any different from what they were, then very different results would have ensued, to the extent of dis-allowing large scale structures at all. But if any and every object in the universe could have failed to exist, then it seems natural to suppose that the universe could have failed to exist.

Again, you'd need a few more years of awesome theoretical physics work to determine that.

The Book: Only a fundamental misunderstanding of the range and scope of physical cosmology offers objection to step 7. They ask where the whole universe, its entire history, as one entity that is a summary of all natural conditions and laws, came from. In order to give a scientific explanation, you'd need to be able to get an Archimedean point outside the whole system, with natural conditions and laws not included in what needed explaining, as the basis for your explanation. If the universe is all natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial natural condition/law outside of it. Therefor there can be no scientific explanation for the existence of the universe.


I don't think it would be appropriate to attatch my signature, since these are technically not my views.

[LiamOS]

A rational person (if rational) doesn't think that things could even possibly happen without an explanation. So says the book.

But in certain situations, it is more than rational to assume that conventional logic does not apply.
If this makes me irrational, so be it.

The Book: Only a fundamental misunderstanding of the range and scope of physical cosmology offers objection to step 7. They ask where the whole universe, its entire history, as one entity that is a summary of all natural conditions and laws, came from. In order to give a scientific explanation, you'd need to be able to get an Archimedean point outside the whole system, with natural conditions and laws not included in what needed explaining, as the basis for your explanation. If the universe is all natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial natural condition/law outside of it. Therefor there can be no scientific explanation for the existence of the universe.

I don't think this is true, from the system itself, one can make perfectly valid conclusions about the system as a whole.

[JoshB]

A rational person (if rational) doesn't think that things could even possibly happen without an explanation. So says the book.

But in certain situations, it is more than rational to assume that conventional logic does not apply.
If this makes me irrational, so be it.

Thank you. I (yes, I) agree. The book doesn't have a counter comment

The Book: Only a fundamental misunderstanding of the range and scope of physical cosmology offers objection to step 7. They ask where the whole universe, its entire history, as one entity that is a summary of all natural conditions and laws, came from. In order to give a scientific explanation, you'd need to be able to get an Archimedean point outside the whole system, with natural conditions and laws not included in what needed explaining, as the basis for your explanation. If the universe is all natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial natural condition/law outside of it. Therefor there can be no scientific explanation for the existence of the universe.

I don't think this is true, from the system itself, one can make perfectly valid conclusions about the system as a whole.

For one, I don't get what your saying here.

For two, The Book claims all of the scientific theories not to be wrong, but rather besides the point. The book and the cosmological argument is zooming to a big picture. All of existence considered to be in and pertaining to the universe. So says the book.

I really hate saying "The Book" over and over it makes me sound like....you know...

[myth-one.com]

I got stuck on 3.
Why is it that no rational person can accept that the universe itself has no knowable explanation for its existence?

There's obviously an explanation for the universe. At present there are multiple explanations! So I'm assuming that your word "knowable" and JoshB's word "intelligible" both imply a proof of validity. All of our explanations today, to my knowledge, are accepted on faith or theory -- with no absolute proof. If so, then at the present time there is no "knowable explanation" for the existence of the universe.

Will an explanation with proof ever be presented? That's the future. But I agree that rational people can accept that the explanation may never be "intelligible" or known and provable to mankind.

[LiamOS]

There's obviously an explanation for the universe.

Why?

[myth-one.com]

There's obviously an explanation for the universe.

Why?

Because it exists.

[LiamOS]

Well, there must be one unexplainable event, or an infinite regress.
I'd put money on one unexplainable, and that it's the universe.

Why do you think the universe must have an explanation?