Non-Serious Objections to the Cosmological Argument, Part 1

[Omega]

1. The Argument Does NOT Rest on the Premise that “Everything has a Cause.”

Countless people – probably most people who have an opinion on the matter – believe that the cosmological argument goes like this:

1.) Everything has a cause.

2.) The universe has a cause.

3. Therefore, God exists.

They then have no trouble at all poking holes in it.  If everything has a cause, then what caused God?  Why assume in the first place that everything has to have a cause?  Why assume the cause is God?  Etc.

Here is the funny thing, though:

People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from.  They never quote anyone defending it.  There’s a reason for that.  The reason is that none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this silly argument.  Not Plato, not Aristotle, not Al-Ghazali, not Aquinas, not Leibniz, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig.  And not anyone serious either.  (Your friend Ted doesn't count. I mean no one among prominent philosophers.)  And yet it is constantly presented, not only by popular writers but even by some professional philosophers, as if it were “the” “basic” version of the cosmological argument, and as if every other version were essentially just a variation on it.

Don’t take my word for it.  The atheist Robin Le Poidevin, in his book Arguing for Atheism begins his critique of the cosmological argument by attacking a variation of the silly argument given above – though he admits that “no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form”!  So what’s the point of attacking it?  Why not start instead with what some prominent defender of the cosmological argument has actually said?

Suppose some creationist began his attack on Darwinism by assuring his readers that “the basic” claim of the Darwinian account of human origins is that at some point in the distant past a monkey gave birth to a human baby.  Suppose he provided no source for this claim – which, of course, he couldn’t have, because no Darwinian has ever said such a thing – and suppose also that he admitted that no one has ever said it.  But suppose further that he claimed that “more sophisticated versions” of Darwinism were really just “modifications” of this claim.  Intellectually speaking, this would be utterly contemptible and sleazy.  It would give readers the false impression that anything Darwinians have to say about human origins, however superficially sophisticated, is really just a desperate exercise in patching up a manifestly absurd position.  Precisely for that reason, though, such a procedure would, rhetorically speaking, be very effective indeed.

Compare that to Le Poidevin’s procedure.  Though by his own admission no one has ever actually defended the feeble argument in question, Le Poidevin still calls it “the basic” version of the cosmological argument and characterizes the “more sophisticated versions” he considers later on as “modifications” of it.  Daniel Dennett does something similar in his book Breaking the Spell.  He assures us that the lame argument in question is “the simplest form” of the cosmological argument and falsely insinuates that other versions – that is to say, the ones that philosophers have actually defended, and which Dennett does not bother to discuss – are merely desperate attempts to repair the obvious problems with the “Everything has a cause” “version.”  As with our imaginary creationist, this procedure is intellectually dishonest and sleazy, but it is rhetorically very effective.  It gives the unwary reader the false impression that “the basic” claim made by Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, et al. is manifestly absurd, that everything else they have to say is merely an attempt to patch up this absurd position, and (therefore) that such writers need not be bothered with further.

And that, I submit, is the reason why the stupid “Everything has a cause” argument – a complete fabrication, an urban legend, something no philosopher has ever defended – perpetually haunts the debate over the cosmological argument.  It gives atheists an easy target, and a way rhetorically to make even their most sophisticated opponents seem silly and not worth bothering with.  It‘s a slimy debating trick, nothing more.

What defenders of the cosmological argument do say is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause.  These claims are as different from “Everything has a cause” as “Whatever has color is extended” is different from “Everything is extended.”  Defenders of the cosmological argument also provide arguments for these claims about causation.  You may disagree with the claims – though if you think they are falsified by modern physics, you are sorely mistaken – but you cannot justly accuse the defender of the cosmological argument either of saying something manifestly silly or of contradicting himself when he goes on to say that God is uncaused.

This gives us what I regard as “the basic” test for determining whether an atheist is informed and intellectually honest.  If he thinks that the cosmological argument rests on the claim that “everything has a cause,” then he is simply ignorant of the basic facts.  If he persists in asserting that it rests on this claim after being informed otherwise, then he is intellectually dishonest.  And if he is an academic philosopher like Le Poidevin or Dennett who is professionally obligated to know these things and to eschew cheap debating tricks, then… well, you do the math.

[rumborak]

You wrote up this whole diatribe only to discredit a certain group of people? Wow.

rumborak

[Omega]

To begin with, the content is not entirely original and is inspired by a certain (somewhat polemical) philosopher of religion.

The reason why this was written is fairly clear: to present objections or assumptions about the cosmological argument which are either non-serious, (to avoid using silly) misplaced or both.

This will serve to clear away some of the intellectual rubbish that prevents many people from giving the argument a fair hearing.

[The King in Crimson]

This will serve to clear away some of the intellectual rubbish opposing viewpoints that prevents many people from giving the argument a fair hearing.

Fixed it for you.

[rumborak]

Are you serious?
Earth to Omega: You are in no position to exhibit the arrogance and condescension you do here. The best contribution to the discussion so far was you quoting someone else (WLC), because he had actually interesting arguments. Your OP is mostly just rambling.

rumborak

[ehra]

*Say "atheist morality" is contradictory based on a made up argument no one on this forum has used.*

*Make a thread complaining about strawmen.*



Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing what exactly the huge difference is between "everything has a cause" and "anything that exists has a cause." And, more importantly, how that difference means that arguments against the first aren't applicable to arguments against the second.

[rumborak]

In either version it's a philosophically untenable statement because it's purely based on experience. It holds true in regular time and space, but outside of it it's indefensible at best, meaningless (as the "does causality even make sense outside time?" discussion showed) at the worst.
It's one of those "axioms" that 100 years down the road showed how incapable the philosopher had been at distinguishing between true axioms and plain empirical ignorance.

rumborak

[Chino]

This is the most redicululous thread I've seen in a while.

[Omega]

This is the most redicululous thread I've seen in a while.

Oh, just wait how to see how "redicululous" it gets in part 2.

[Dr. DTVT]

Can we all just agree to ignore rambling diatribes instead of dumping gas on the flames?  It would lead to better discussion and less derailing.

[hefdaddy42]

What is the point of this thread? 

[Adami]

What is the point of this thread?

You might understand if you've ever been to a highschool philosophy class.




...and only a highschool philosophy class.

[rumborak]

It's kinda like The Spaghetti Incident, with the announcement of Chinese Democracy inside.

rumborak

[Omega]

What is the point of this thread?

Clearing up misconceptions, misunderstandings and addressing simple false objections to the Cosmological Argument.

[hefdaddy42]

What is the point of this thread?

Clearing up misconceptions, misunderstandings and addressing simple false objections to the Cosmological Argument.

Is that a big problem here?

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

What is the point of this thread?

Clearing up misconceptions, misunderstandings and addressing simple false objections to the Cosmological Argument.

Do you want to be right, or do you want the Cosmological Argument to be right?

[Omega]

What is the point of this thread?

Clearing up misconceptions, misunderstandings and addressing simple false objections to the Cosmological Argument.

Is that a big problem here?

I would say so

[Omega]

What is the point of this thread?

Clearing up misconceptions, misunderstandings and addressing simple false objections to the Cosmological Argument.

Do you want to be right, or do you want the Cosmological Argument to be right?

Neither. Misconceptions and pointless objections must be cleared first, though, if we hope to have any real discourse on the matter. I think that the vast majority of philosophers who have studied the argument in any depth – and again, that includes atheists as well as theists, though it does not include most philosophers outside the sub-discipline of philosophy of religion – would agree with the objections that are to be listed, or with most of them anyway.  Of course, I do not mean that they would all agree with me that the argument is at the end of the day a convincing argument.  I just mean that they would agree that most non-specialists who comment on it do not understand it, and that the reasons why people reject it are usually superficial and based on caricatures of the argument.  Nor do I say that every single self-described philosopher of religion would agree with the points I am about to make.

[rumborak]

Omega, you had a whole thread to get your point across. Has it not occurred to you that the reason we don't agree with you is not because we're dense or ignorant, but maybe because we plain don't find the arguments convincing?

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

What is the point of this thread?

Clearing up misconceptions, misunderstandings and addressing simple false objections to the Cosmological Argument.

Is that a big problem here?

I would say so

I would say not, since you are the only one who has even brought up this subject.

[Adami]

I just noticed this thread is "part 1".


Part 2 should be quite interesting, considering this is mostly imaginary stuff going on here.

[Sigz]

They then have no trouble at all poking holes in it.  If everything has a cause, then what caused God?  Why assume in the first place that everything has to have a cause?  Why assume the cause is God?  Etc.

Here is the funny thing, though:

People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from.  They never quote anyone defending it. 

In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?

[Omega]

Indeed, Sigz, the next non-serious objection is the "what caused God" objection. That is if this thread doesn't get locked for illegitimate reasons.

Also there is no scientific evidence to support that our universe has existed forever. Indeed there is a vast amount of scientific evidence that points to this universe not existing forever. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us something useful on this matter as well: if our universe had existed for an infinite amount of time, our universe would have reached heat death an infinite amount of time ago. Yet that is another topic.

[Scheavo]

What defenders of the cosmological argument do say is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause.  These claims are as different from “Everything has a cause” as “Whatever has color is extended” is different from “Everything is extended.”  Defenders of the cosmological argument also provide arguments for these claims about causation.  You may disagree with the claims – though if you think they are falsified by modern physics, you are sorely mistaken – but you cannot justly accuse the defender of the cosmological argument either of saying something manifestly silly or of contradicting himself when he goes on to say that God is uncaused.

How can you so calmly claim that the universe began to exist, or that the universe is contingent? And at the same time, claim that God is not contingent, and that God never began to exist? You're still not answering the question at hand, and you're just redefining terms to try and make it more logical, instead of dealing with the fundamental problem you're faced with.

The bold part is the only thing that even closely deals with the arguments being presented to you on this forum, and the bold part isn't an argument, so much as your stated opinion. And to say sorely mistaken? I'm sorry, but for a claim like that - one that goes against expert physicists claims - I'm going to need proof, and at least an argument as to why. The only time you got this in depth about Quantum Mechanics and modern physics was to attack a strawman argument that isn't being made.

Indeed, Sigz, the next non-serious objection is the "what caused God" objection.

Asking for an explanation of God's existence, or where does God come from, does not necessitate that we ask for a "cause" of God. As you'll notice, in the the form of the Leibniz argument you gave , which WLC defends, Leibniz says that everything which exists has an explanation. The argument is for why God exists, so he must have an explanation.

You're just not answering the questions being put forward, you're constantly shifting them into something you can defeat, according to lines and arguments you've already fashioned up.

Indeed there is a vast amount of scientific evidence that points to this universe not existing forever. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us something useful on this matter as well: if our universe had existed for an infinite amount of time, our universe would have reached heat death an infinite amount of time ago. Yet that is another topic.

Infinite is not eternal, and that's a distinction you should be able to make if you're going to call peoples objections to your argument non-serious.

Also, the Second Law is the best explanation for why we experience reality the way we do, but it does not, in any way, say that such an arrow or conception of time is some inherent property of reality. You're still looking at the world through your own personal experience of time, which doesn't play itself out in the physical world around you.

[Chino]

How is infinite not eternal?

[Adami]

How is infinite not eternal?

As far as I know infinite is spacial, while eternal is about time.


Or something. But it's sad these arguments have dissolved into pure semantics.

[Omega]

What defenders of the cosmological argument do say is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause.  These claims are as different from “Everything has a cause” as “Whatever has color is extended” is different from “Everything is extended.”  Defenders of the cosmological argument also provide arguments for these claims about causation.  You may disagree with the claims – though if you think they are falsified by modern physics, you are sorely mistaken – but you cannot justly accuse the defender of the cosmological argument either of saying something manifestly silly or of contradicting himself when he goes on to say that God is uncaused.

How can you so calmly claim that the universe began to exist, or that the universe is contingent? And at the same time, claim that God is not contingent, and that God never began to exist? You're still not answering the question at hand, and you're just redefining terms to try and make it more logical, instead of dealing with the fundamental problem you're faced with.

Because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to our universe beginning to exist. And, as I said, I'll address the popular "what caused God" objection in the next "part," if you will.

The bold part is the only thing that even closely deals with the arguments being presented to you on this forum, and the bold part isn't an argument, so much as your stated opinion. And to say sorely mistaken? I'm sorry, but for a claim like that - one that goes against expert physicists claims - I'm going to need proof, and at least an argument as to why. The only time you got this in depth about Quantum Mechanics and modern physics was to attack a strawman argument that isn't being made.

You are either arguing:

A.) Quantum mechanics proves that some events are uncaused.

Again, this is an abuse of science, perpetrated by many atheistic popularizers. You may go back to the thread to read (yet again) what I posted there

or

B.) We don't know why radiation (or some other event) occurs


A is a patently false objection to premise 1 of the Kalam and is an abuse of science (again, as I elaborated on the causality thread). If you think I need to further address this, then it would be my pleasure to in the near future. And, no, I don't what to hear what it is you think what the appropriate philosophical definition of "nothing" should be.


B is just a wonderful and unrelated musing on our failings in science. So what if we don't know what causes radiation to occur? Does that mean that radiation is uncaused? You're the one who's claiming that premise 1 of the kalam is false. You have to give an example of how things can come into being from non-being and then face the problem of why just anything doesn't come into being.

Indeed, Sigz, the next non-serious objection is the "what caused God" objection.

Asking for an explanation of God's existence, or where does God come from, does not necessitate that we ask for a "cause" of God. As you'll notice, in the the form of the Leibniz argument you gave , which WLC defends, Leibniz says that everything which exists has an explanation. The argument is for why God exists, so he must have an explanation.

Good eye, there Scheavo (no, I'm not being sarcastic).

At first blush, premise 1 of Leibniz' argument seems very vulnerable in an obvious way: if everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, and God exists, then God must have an explanation for His existence. Yet that seems out of the question, for then the explanation for God's existence would be some other being greater than God. Since that is impossible (God is the greatest conceivable being; what can be greater than the greatest conceivable being? An infinite regress of God-creating-Gods?), premise 1 must be false. Some things must be able to exist without any explanation. The believer will simply say that God exists inexplicably. The unbeliever will say, "Why not stop with the universe? The universe just exists inexplicably." So a stalemate is reached.

Not too fast, though. This objection is born out of a misunderstanding of what Leibniz means by an "explanation." According to Leibniz, there are to kinds of things: 1.) Things that exist necessarily, and 2.) Things that are produced by some external cause.

1.) Things that exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. It's impossible for them not to exist. Mathematicians think that numbers and other mathematical entities exist in this way; they're not caused to exist by something else. They just exist by the necessity of their own nature.

2.) In contrast, things that are caused to exist by something else don't exist necessarily; they exist because something else has produced them. Physical objects like planets, knifes, stars, etc, fall into this category.

So when Leibniz says that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, the explanation may be found either in the necessity of a thing's nature or else in some external cause. So premise 1.) of Leibniz's argument could be better formulated:

1.) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

But the objection is now defeated; the explanation for God's existence lies in the necessity of God's own nature. As even a sincere atheist will recognize, it's impossible for God to have a cause (more on that later). Leibniz's argument is really an argument for God as a necessary, uncaused being.

[Omega]

How is infinite not eternal?

Or something. But it's sad these arguments have dissolved into pure semantics.

Adami, literally all your comments here have been meaningless and have only served to insult the topic at hand. I'm not an uptight a-hole and I don't mind it if you keep commenting in this way (nor would I want you to face any sort of reprimand for such harmless comments), but I thought the observation warranted being voiced.

[Adami]

How is infinite not eternal?

Or something. But it's sad these arguments have dissolved into pure semantics.

Adami, literally all your comments here have been meaningless and have only served to insult the topic at hand. I'm not an uptight a-hole and I don't mind it if you keep commenting in this way (nor would I want you to face any sort of reprimand for such harmless comments), but I thought the observation warranted being voiced.

I haven't commented on you in this thread. Nor did I call you any names. I said you guys are arguing a lot of semantics, the definition of nothing, eternal, infinite and so forth. And so far you're the only one who seems to think actual arguments are being made, since every other post essentially has agreed with me that nothing of value is happening here.

[yeshaberto]

this is the first and last warning...

if this discussion does not stay away from insulting one another rather than a discussion of the argument, this thread will perish!

[Sigz]

But why does it have to be god? The simple fact is we have no idea what lies beyond our universe. Could it be some eternal entity that created it? Sure. It's also equally concievable that it's some other eternal plane/universe/multiverse that by it's nature spawns universe(s), independent of any conscious design.* The simple fact is we simply don't know, and there's no reason to believe it's God over anything else.

*And the 'well then where did that universe come from?' argument. There's no reason to believe that anything outside our universe would follow our universe's laws of physics.

[Omega]

I haven't commented on you in this thread. Nor did I call you any names. I said you guys are arguing a lot of semantics, the definition of nothing, eternal, infinite and so forth. And so far you're the only one who seems to think actual arguments are being made, since every other post essentially has agreed with me that nothing of value is happening here.

Adami, I never said you were calling me names (and I wouldn't mind it if you were to).

And all these "semantics" are philosophical subjects that have been pondered by greater minds than ours from the dawn of history. Certainly Xenophanes and Pericles and Socrates and countless other great minds all pondered these matters.

Just because you don't think a topic or subject is worthwhile doesn't mean that it isn't. And even if it wasn't, should we disallow all sorts of conversation that a select few deem worthless?

That would pretty much result in the deletion of the whole General Discussion tab...

[Adami]

this is the first and last warning...

if this discussion does not stay away from insulting one another rather than a discussion of the argument, this thread will perish!

Sorry bro, I'll bow out and just read. Frustrated as I may be.

[Omega]

this is the first and last warning...

if this discussion does not stay away from insulting one another rather than a discussion of the argument, this thread will perish!

Ok, but I'm not seeing any insulting of one another (at least not from me).

[Scheavo]

What defenders of the cosmological argument do say is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause.  These claims are as different from “Everything has a cause” as “Whatever has color is extended” is different from “Everything is extended.”  Defenders of the cosmological argument also provide arguments for these claims about causation.  You may disagree with the claims – though if you think they are falsified by modern physics, you are sorely mistaken – but you cannot justly accuse the defender of the cosmological argument either of saying something manifestly silly or of contradicting himself when he goes on to say that God is uncaused.

How can you so calmly claim that the universe began to exist, or that the universe is contingent? And at the same time, claim that God is not contingent, and that God never began to exist? You're still not answering the question at hand, and you're just redefining terms to try and make it more logical, instead of dealing with the fundamental problem you're faced with.

Because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to our universe beginning to exist. And, as I said, I'll address the popular "what caused God" objection in the next "part," if you will.

Not really, science doesn't have any answers as to why the Universe exists, only answers as to why the Universe is currently the way it is. The Big Bang isn't a creation story, not really. Ask a physicist this question, and they will probably bring up the possibility of a multiverse, or some other physical possibility for our universe coming into existence, which you'll notice sorta just expands the "universe" (universe meaning everything that exists, by definition), and doesn't say that the universe began "here."

The bold part is the only thing that even closely deals with the arguments being presented to you on this forum, and the bold part isn't an argument, so much as your stated opinion. And to say sorely mistaken? I'm sorry, but for a claim like that - one that goes against expert physicists claims - I'm going to need proof, and at least an argument as to why. The only time you got this in depth about Quantum Mechanics and modern physics was to attack a strawman argument that isn't being made.

You are either arguing:

A.) Quantum mechanics proves that some events are uncaused.

Again, this is an abuse of science, perpetrated by many atheistic popularizers. You may go back to the thread to read (yet again) what I posted there

or

B.) We don't know why radiation (or some other event) occurs


A is a patently false objection to premise 1 of the Kalam and is an abuse of science (again, as I elaborated on the causality thread). If you think I need to further address this, then it would be my pleasure to in the near future. And, no, I don't what to hear what it is you think what the appropriate philosophical definition of "nothing" should be.

You addressed the fact that there is no place we can look at in the universe, where this is not in fact something. You did not address the fact that the quantum world does not follow an arrow of time, nor does it follow strict causal links. You've ignored the extent to which I've said that there can be "causes" and "effects," but that doing so requires us to reconceptualize the terms to such a degree that it makes it inept in the Cosmological Proof.

Quantum Mechanics falsifies the conception of cause and effect being used to make the cosmological argument. Is that a better way to put it for you? It does not falsify the possibilities of cause and effect, but it does make the arrow of time you're relying upon, a very suspect thing.

B is just a wonderful and unrelated musing on our failings in science. So what if we don't know what causes radiation to occur? Does that mean that radiation is uncaused? You're the one who's claiming that premise 1 of the kalam is false. You have to give an example of how things can come into being from non-being and then face the problem of why just anything doesn't come into being.

I'm not saying, undeniably, that premise 1 is false. I'm saying that, undeniably, premise 1 is unknowable. You have as much proof to back up premise 1 as I have to challenge premise 1. And remember, since you're the one giving the proof for the existence of God, that burden of proof lies with you. I don't know to prove anything on this issue, because my position is that nothing is provable. You're committing a fallacy by appealing to ignorance, while I am simply advocating our own ignorance.

1.) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

But the objection is now defeated; the explanation for God's existence lies in the necessity of God's own nature. As even a sincere atheist will recognize, it's impossible for God to have a cause (more on that later). Leibniz's argument is really an argument for God as a necessary, uncaused being.

Ahhh, the ontological proof for God's existence finally rears it's ugly, irrational, solipsistic head (thanks, you actually made me remember what my philosophy professor said about htis proof, at the time; that it's basically a reformulation of the ontological proof, and thus has pretty much all the problems associated with the ontological proof). Existence is not a quality, Kant solved that issue decades ago. This is perhaps the most absurd argument I've ever seen taken so seriously by so many people. This kind of logic basically makes it so anything you can conceive of as being perfect, has to exist, because otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. Your conception of something as perfect doesn't mean anything, it is a fabrication of your own mind, and relies upon an unproven assumption that human rationality can even understand the issue at hand.

To all of that, why cannot the universe exist because of it's own necessity? In fact, if you've been following my argument, especially regarding quantum mechanics, that may well be the case. Notice how you're just moving the question? You're being semantical, which basically means you're only proving things within the confines of the human language, much less reality.