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.

[myth-one.com]

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?

Because.

Now you state that "there must be one unexplainable event," which is the universe. I thought in another thread you claimed the Big Bang caused the universe?

[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?

There's obviously an explanation for the universe. At present there are multiple explanations!

Not quite. The multiple explanations for the universe only push the horizon back a bit. The God hypothesis, for example, leaves God without an explanation for his existence. The Big Bang, does not explain the initial singularity. All of the others, either have an infinite regress or an unexplained first cause.

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.

No, it will not. Because if it comes from revealed religion, it will not be provable. If it comes from science, the answer will only open up more questions. It always does.

As far as I can see, there are only three possibilities with regard to the question of the ultimate origin.

The first is an infinite regression. If that is the case, and our own understanding is finite, then there must be some kind of comprehension horizon, beyond which the origin is unintelligible and without explanation.

The second is to posit some kind of first cause that is not known to exist, typically called God. God's existence is then unintelligible and without explanation.

The third is to posit that the ultimate first cause is something that is known to exist, the universe itself. That the universe exists, is also unintelligible and without explanation.

Thus, I conclude that 3. No rational person can accept 2-a. is false. In fact, no rational person can reject that the existence of the universe is unintelligible. Or to remove the double negatives. Rational people must accept that the existence of the universe is unintelligible.

[Cathar1950]

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!

Not quite. The multiple explanations for the universe only push the horizon back a bit. The God hypothesis, for example, leaves God without an explanation for his existence. The Big Bang, does not explain the initial singularity. All of the others, either have an infinite regress or an unexplained first cause.

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.

No, it will not. Because if it comes from revealed religion, it will not be provable. If it comes from science, the answer will only open up more questions. It always does.

It seems that if everything has a cause and you can't have an infinite cause then not everything has a cause.
I tend to see causality as an abstraction and cause and effect a divided abstraction.

What we see is change and relationships.

I do like the idea where two membranes collide creating our present Big bang or inflation that seems to still be going strong.

As the universe expanded it cooled. The universe expanding caused it to cool as it was not as dense. As it cooled more emergent properties were produced as particles collided.

I could use a little help here.

[LiamOS]

Because.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much more.

Now you state that "there must be one unexplainable event," which is the universe. I thought in another thread you claimed the Big Bang caused the universe?

The Big Bang is the progression of the universe from its cause. It may be that it has no cause, or it may be that the big bag was necessary and as such, was the cause of its own cause, there may be other possibilities yet(If I hear of anything interesting, I'll let y'all know.), but as of now, it seems ludicrous to ponder that something which cannot be shown to exist is the cause.

[myth-one.com]

Will an explanation with proof ever be presented?

No, it will not. Because if it comes from revealed religion, it will not be provable. If it comes from science, the answer will only open up more questions. It always does.

As far as I can see, there are only three possibilities with regard to the question of the ultimate origin.

The first is an infinite regression. If that is the case, and our own understanding is finite, then there must be some kind of comprehension horizon, beyond which the origin is unintelligible and without explanation.

The second is to posit some kind of first cause that is not known to exist, typically called God. God's existence is then unintelligible and without explanation.

The third is to posit that the ultimate first cause is something that is known to exist, the universe itself. That the universe exists, is also unintelligible and without explanation.

Thus, I conclude that 3. No rational person can accept 2-a. is false. In fact, no rational person can reject that the existence of the universe is unintelligible. Or to remove the double negatives. Rational people must accept that the existence of the universe is unintelligible.

Great post!! Your explanation is intelligible.

[WinePusher]

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

As a side note, it also comes from people like Gottfried Leibnez and Rene Decartes.

[The Mad Haranguer]

As far as I can see, there are only three possibilities with regard to the question of the ultimate origin.

The first is an infinite regression. If that is the case, and our own understanding is finite, then there must be some kind of comprehension horizon, beyond which the origin is unintelligible and without explanation.

The second is to posit some kind of first cause that is not known to exist, typically called God. God's existence is then unintelligible and without explanation.

The third is to posit that the ultimate first cause is something that is known to exist, the universe itself. That the universe exists, is also unintelligible and without explanation.

Thus, I conclude that 3. No rational person can accept 2-a. is false. In fact, no rational person can reject that the existence of the universe is unintelligible. Or to remove the double negatives. Rational people must accept that the existence of the universe is unintelligible.

Your reasoning is good, but posit 2 has "hidden assumptions." It assumes "God" is somehow a thing apart from the universe and it ignores the fact that science has penetrated so far into the nature of physical reality that it can see a harmony that is in conformity with sublime reason -- or so it says. This, in alignment with "infinite regression", means the "who made God" scenario upon which it rests is about as intelligible as "what's north of the North Pole?"

[Adamoriens]

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.

It seems to me that we can only fiddle with the parameters of our universe. It is possible that there are huge numbers of exotic arrangements that are completely outside out of our ability to imagine, much less theorize about. In other words, we have no idea what forms survivable universes could take. Therefore it is misleading to say that our universe is the only possible one.

The cosmological argument presumes, I think, that the universe was meant to exist. Most Christian apologists go further and say that God intended the universe to support life. This argument is rehashed geocentrism. All arguments that put humans somehow at the center of existence are to be suspect on the grounds of massive egocentrism.

This, in alignment with "infinite regression", means the "who made God" scenario upon which it rests is about as intelligible as "what's north of the North Pole?"

Then you misunderstand it. If one says that all effects have causes and assumes that God is uncaused, then one is begging the question. It seems rather inconsistent to say that universe must have a cause and that God does not. It smacks of ad-hoc methodology. Perhaps I'm missing something essential here: somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[The Mad Haranguer]

Then you misunderstand it. If one says that all effects have causes and assumes that God is uncaused, then one is begging the question. It seems rather inconsistent to say that universe must have a cause and that God does not. It smacks of ad-hoc methodology. Perhaps I'm missing something essential here: somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Every effect has a cause, but it does not follow that every cause must have a cause -- especially in light of modern science.

[Adamoriens]

Every effect has a cause, but it does not follow that every cause must have a cause -- especially in light of modern science.

Word games. Every effect is also a cause. Why doesn't it follow that every cause is also an effect ie. it has a cause? But I'd rather this discussion didn't take a turn into infinity: I'd be out of my depth.

I suppose you're referring to the apparently random activity of subatomic particles. If there really are naturally occurring uncaused effects/causes, then this seems to challenge the cosmological argument's premise that only supernatural agents can be uncaused causes.