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.

[The Mad Haranguer]

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.

It's logic. Why must every cause have a cause?

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.

Sorry, but it is impossible to talk about these matters without bringing up infinity.

First, your statement presupposes a "supernatural" agent. There's no such thing if there is no ontological distinction between agent and effect and therefore only different phases of being. Secondly, Hume may have been right in that our basis for arguing the existence of this relationship is solely dependent on custom and resemblance: matters of fact are falsely founded on the relation of cause and effect. Thirdly (and this bears most directly on your statement), infinite complexity and randomness are indistinguishable to a finite mind. Finally, if God is unchangeable and eternal as Christianity claims, then Creatorship is the aggregate of an acting nature rather than the act of of someone waking up one morning and deciding to create a universe

[Adamoriens]

Why must every cause have a cause?

Same question: why must every cause be an effect? Ignoring Hume, our experience of causes is that they are all effects ie. they have causes. If subatomic activity is simply infinitely complex rather than random, then this is further support, I suppose. It seems to me then that the burden of proof is not on me to provide proof that all causes must have causes, but on you (or whoever) to show that it is possible (or necessary) for one not to. I think I mean by "supernatural agent" the Christian uncaused cause.

Thirdly (and this bears most directly on your statement), infinite complexity and randomness are indistinguishable to a finite mind.

Thank God I said "seems." Always leave the back door open.

Finally, if God is unchangeable and eternal as Christianity claims, then Creatorship is the aggregate of an acting nature rather than the act of of someone waking up one morning and deciding to create a universe

And yet the Beginning as far as we understand it was an event.

[The Mad Haranguer]

Why must every cause have a cause?

Same question: why must every cause be an effect? Ignoring Hume, our experience of causes is that they are all effects ie. they have causes. If subatomic activity is simply infinitely complex rather than random, then this is further support, I suppose. It seems to me then that the burden of proof is not on me to provide proof that all causes must have causes, but on you (or whoever) to show that it is possible (or necessary) for one not to. I think I mean by "supernatural agent" the Christian uncaused cause.

Thirdly (and this bears most directly on your statement), infinite complexity and randomness are indistinguishable to a finite mind.

Thank God I said "seems." Always leave the back door open.

Finally, if God is unchangeable and eternal as Christianity claims, then Creatorship is the aggregate of an acting nature rather than the act of of someone waking up one morning and deciding to create a universe

And yet the Beginning as far as we understand it was an event.

Let’s start over.

Book:

The existence of the universe is either
A) unintelligible or

B) has an explanation

3. No rational person can accept 2-a.

Critique:

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.

In the critique, “intelligible� and “explanation� are used synonymously. McCulloch’s is basically arguing that because the explanation for its intelligibility has no explanation, the universe itself is unintelligible. No one seriously believes that. Even McCulloch himself must presuppose the universe is intelligible in order to critique the posits. For if 3 is false and the universe is unintelligible, so is his critique.

Now, as for the Sunday-school question "who made God?" The reasoning goes like this: (1) Every contingent being has a cause/explanation. (2) Such causes/explanations cannot run in an infinite regress. (3) Consequently, there must be a First Cause/Explanation that is itself uncaused/unexplained. (4) There must be a necessary being, and this is what is meant by "God."

In posit #1, McCulloch says that if infinite regression is the case, "there must be some kind of comprehension horizon, beyond which the origin is unintelligible and without explanation." Theologians have been saying that God is beyond our "comprehension horizon" for centuries. That does not mean the effects are unintelligible. In fact, some have argued that belief in a rational Creator was the impetus that spurred Western science to surpass the East.

First Cause in the sense theologians use the term does not mean (and has never meant) "first" in a sequence of events, but final explanation and most fundamental Reality -- the very thing science looks for as it probes ever-deeper into the nature of reality. Time and beginnings in time such as the Big Bang have no bearing on Christian conceptions of God -- unless you are willing to say theologians like St. Augustine do not represent Christian thought.

[JoshB]

From my reading, the book agrees fully with The Mad Haranguer.

Any more critiques of the books argument?

[The Mad Haranguer]

From my reading, the book agrees fully with The Mad Haranguer.

Any more critiques of the books argument?

It does? Hmmm. Guess I should read it.

What I said is all pretty basic.

[The Mad Haranguer]

Looking over the list in the OP, #6, "The explanation for the existence of the universe cannot be essential (The universe is not the sort of thing that exists necessarily.)," seems to be the weakest link. I would say that the intelligibility of the universe cannot be essential. However, that could be what was meant.

[ChaosBorders]

Well, there must be one unexplainable event, or an infinite regress.

I think it depends on how you define event.

[JoshB]

Suggestions, ChaosBorders?

I would think event is something that happens...but why should we be confined to a dictionary? What alternative definitions do you have?

And just to bring everything together, name the number of the steps of the Cosmological Argument you have a problem with and then bullet point your contradictory argument. We'll go on from there.

[SailingCyclops]

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?

Are you saying that nothing can ever be explained prior to the Planck epoch?

Bob

[JoshB]

How can anything be explained beyond that point? Wouldn't all theories essentially be guesses at that point?