2. [54] Immanuel Kant • Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation). Just like any other argument, the cosmological argument also has its own flaws that have prevented many people from believing in it. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. Craig, William Lane (2000). The strengths fo the cosmological argument outweigh the weaknesses. But ”nothing” could not exist as a thing or it would be part of something, ”somethings” are the only sort of things (as opposed to the direct contradiction of ”non-things”) wich can logically exist. Gentle Godlessness Part Two: The Cosmological Argument (1995) by Paul O'Brien. Also if I say that everything is depends on the great HS then can you really prove me wrong. [23] This is why the argument is often expanded to show that at least some of these attributes are necessarily true, for instance in the modern Kalam argument given above.[1]. • Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites) Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. It were better therefore never to look beyond the present material world." 3. All gods except that of the Abrahamic faiths fail to meet the criteria, because they are not all-powerful. a) Explain Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument. All polytheistic and pantheistic religions are thus ruled out. It is not difficult to presume that simple and complex compression is happened in possible minimal widening from permanent widening level, first, inclination to descending, from material component of God from non-material component of Divine Spirit/separation happened as maximum possible diversity (1H) on essence of God on minimum possible numeric homogeneity regarding with blockage of start of non-material components, permanently widening, inclined to their increase of essence/God widens minimal possible homogeneity as maximum possible numeric diversity (2H) to His essence on the basis of 1H material components. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. That is a theoretical construct (like infinity or a singularity in mathematics) rather than a discrete set of entities that we can point to. Can you show me a personality not being dependent on a material existence. Arguments against. “Who’s holding up the world?” Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Nevertheless, David White argues that the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious. BTW, the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe. Is he both able and willing? Now let look at another comment that you have made “This means that if the candidate god EVER LIES, it cannot be the true God.”. If one asks the question, “Why are there any contingent beings at all?”, it won’t help to be told that “There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them.” That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. It is an error to think that the universe is finite because all of the things in it are finite, that would be the fallacy of composition. Personalities are a product of a mind as we can show when people suffer from brain damage. Critics of the Modal Cosmological Argument or Argument from Contingency would question whether the universe is in fact contingent. First cause argument (cosmological argument) St Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) developed the most popular argument as a 'way' (not proof) of showing that there must be a God. 5 Arguments For and Against the Existence of God. Actually, simply by recognizing that the universe is ordered, complex, has a beginning, that time is interwoven with material being, etc, you can reach these following conclusions about whatever the causal agent of the universe MUST BE: “• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation) >>>>>The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time. Indeed, but don’t forget that an entity not bound by time would not be caused by anything, so this meets the criteria you’ve presented. This is a scientific fact which you cannot argue. [30], Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: “One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation“[31] (Carlo Rovelli). There is a cause “outside the universe.”. “Atlas.” Everything, he says, has a cause or a reason. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. Each specific set of entities is discrete. According to you he didn’t create himself. Yet it is perfectly acceptable to posit that not only does your (puny) mind know the extent of the *universe*, it posits an even more infinite being which is uncaused or eternal in the same sense that you denied the universe could be – and this somehow does not ‘contradict’ your infinite knowledge that the universe is finite. It has simply always existed, apart from any causal chain. Your email address will not be published. b. • Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)”. Since, assumedly, any given universe is infinite in size, we’re really simply describing how to reach that universe – think of it as that universe’s address, or a map to get there. Incidentally, Yahweh makes it clear that all the other “gods” are either man-made idols or demonic beings masquerading as angelic (‘godlike’) creatures. • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known). There are a handful of famous arguments for the existence of a god. Then why call him God?”. 2. It would be correct to say that the universe has existed as long as time has existed. • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) What they don’t say is that the universe actually has a beginning. For example you could say that you have a set of rulers that are of infinite length but not infinite width. For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the … In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false. What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… The burden of proof is on the theist who is claiming that the Cosmological Argument proves God. 1. Similarly, Michael Martin reasons t hat no current version of the • Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality). The first cause argument is an argument for the existence of God associated with St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). The horizontal cosmological argument, also called the kalam cosmological argument, is a little easier to understand because it does not require much philosophizing. “It is meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of entities, because time is a property of entities itself.”. 1. But the universe has been existing for a finite amount of time. You said “False. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism. Here is my rebuttal: ... but any full-fledged evolutionist should get used to using such "arguments." Assume the Big Bang is correct for argument’s sake: everything inside the volume marked by the boundary of how far matter can have expanded since the Big Bang is considered the universe. Pingback: The One Minute Case For Atheism | One Minute Cases, Jason Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. [33], Philosopher Edward Feser states that classical philosophers’ arguments for the existence of God do not care about the Big Bang or whether the universe had a beginning. • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) That really doesn’t jell with your comment about your god being simple. That thing could not be bound by time itself, since that thing created time. Is it a correct reading of your argument against a “first cause” for the universe that there can be no “first cause” or “prime entity” that exists outside of the universe because “universe” is inclusive of all entities and thus all causes? • Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver) Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” Now use those criteria to screen out the possible candidates. The claim of the first premise is “whatever begins to exist had a cause.” It’s often demonstrated by listing the causal principle “something cannot come from nothing,” or ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Also see the Contingency and Moral arguments presented on that site. Neither sounds very good to me. You just need to define those infinites so that they are not conflict. When all is said and done, the only remaining candidate for First Cause is Yahweh, the Creator God of the Bible. [27] To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. "If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on without out. Then, to add a universe to M, we simply state: M = M (union) f({things to be included},(where to place the new universe)). If your god said that raping kids is moral then it would be moral to rape kids (Judges 21:11). It might surprise you to hear this, having grown up in Judeo-Christian culture, but YHWH is the only God that is claimed to be all powerful, all knowing, above and beyond His creation. Traditional Cosmological Arguments. Allah fails this test, leaving only YHWH of the Judeo-Christian faith. Now, since we do not require that all things in existence be present in any universe, we can have a being outside of M that may apply f as many times as it sees fit. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. 2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 1. In your case you choose to base your morals on either the commands of your god or on his nature. [1]One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Some of these weaknesses are: 1. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. Cosmological argument (the world can't be self-caused or uncaused, it needs a First Cause (God). Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence. “the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe.”. You describe that your god must be the creator of the universe since he has the following properties. Now, let us define a multiverse, M, such that M = { U | U is a Universe}. In them Philo, Demea and Cleanthes discuss arguments for the existence of God. ONE: the universe is the set of all existing entities inside the 3-dimensional space in which those entities exist. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. The universe had a … 3. 1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. You can imagine them having simply appeared by themselves, conforming to some but not all laws of physics all you want, but the fact remains that they didn’t. Yet this would be in direct contradiction to your own necessity. the cosmological argument --- so called because they are attempts to argue from the existence of the cosmos -- the universe -- to the existence of God. Since you proclaim he is known then by your own logic he didn’t create all that is known. But the universe has been existing for a finite amount of time. Dr. Craig, I have some questions about your version of the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (which you call the argument from contingency--is there a difference?). Two problems. The fact is that morality is always subjective. The cosmological, or “first cause” argument, is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God. Closing process reopens according to initial opening level of Divine Spirit 1H-1H process of God to 2H process and conversion possibilities of 2H process to 1 H process! • Timeless and changeless (He created time) The Teleological Argument (also popularly known as the Argument from Design) is perhaps the most popular argument for the existence of God today. • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) All pantheistic gods are claimed to be part of the creation themselves, and so they therefore cannot meet the criteria of being the primary causal agent. Cosmological concept which is complete from logical point of view. Infinities do not actually exist. 1. You have not objected to anything. Does he care about the staving. The Islamic god also fails to meet the criteria, because you can derive from the facts of nature that the true God would have to be timeless, which would mean that He would be changeless with respect to time, which means that any rules, promises, etc will be consistent from the beginning of time to the end (if there was such a thing as an end). It’s semantics to argue whether the universe is a ‘set’ or an ‘entity.’ It is a [word] which contains everything that materially exists within a particular 3 dimensional space. [28] A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause. It is meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of entities, because time is a property of entities itself. ” The Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused. The specificity of the cosmos is evidence of its reality. Here you’re explicitly asking for a reason why ”something” exists instead of ”nothing”. Closing process starts only from time, known to God, starting from completion of 2 H opening process. Cosmological Argument – Every beginning has a beginner. Richard Swinburne contends that the cosmological argument is notdeductively valid; if it were, Swinburne is correct that if someone believes that a deductivecosmological argument (proof) for God’s existence is sound, thenit would be incoherent for that same person to then deny that Godexists. Anything else is not the universe. That’s not an infinite number. You’re nearly all the way there! Rape worsens well being and hence immoral. /due to lack of knowledge of the English language was not able to correct the translation Implemented by Google/ • Immaterial (because He transcends space) Yet you say he is a part of space. During the history of philosophy and theology, many arguments for and against the existence of God have been made. 2.It is sufficient to declare existence of Lord and Almighty in other element, possesing non-closed systematic appearance in order to imagine it as different and incomplete as heterogenous (in other words: various type). The universe is finite because the law of identity applies to everything that exists. A cosmological argument, in natural theology and natural philosophy (not cosmology), is an argument in which the existence of God is inferred from alleged facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. 2. We can’t tallk about “an X before time” or “an X outside the universe” because they are fallacies. Then an arbitrary universe, Ui, is defined as Ui = ({x | x exists in Ui’s space},(Ui’s space)). The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time. Whatever that means. A self-existing entity would not have created itself, because it never began to exist. [22] Opponents of the argument tend to argue that it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. Answer by Craig Skinner Traditional arguments for God's existence include: 1. [34], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument. Then, we have a basis for creating universes that does not require a previous universe, and therefore a basis for intelligent design. Determining whether or not Jesus Christ is God is easily determined by comparing the texts of the Bible and applying the grammatical-historical method to understand the Bible’s consistent message from start to finish. Other verses which show your god lies are Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11. If the universe is the set of all existing entities, that entity must be part of the universe. If we ask what causes something, it is some prior thing; and as we go back in the chain of … The universe cannot have created itself, but something with different properties from the universe could have created the universe. Religious topics abound on Listverse and they are frequently the most commented upon. 4. The stylized “proof from the big bang” is: Both proofs contain several problematic claims: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. • Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver) How do you define that your god is moral? [32] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate causes for the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes. • Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything) Tagged as atheism, cosmological argument, god, Religion. The Cosmological Argument: In Hume’s Dialogues, part 9, the character Demea begins by summarizing the Cosmological Argument. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. John Wiley and Sons. It is more logical to conclude that the origin of the universe is the simplest one possible, since all higher-level causes derive from it. However, suppose this: there are an infinite number of disjoint universes, each mapping to a positive, integer number. The law of identity is an axiomatic metaphysical principle which applies to all entities directly and equally, of any and all levels of complexity, bypassing the problem presented by the distributive fallacies. This is problematic because this God, being an aspect of the existant universe contradicts your supposed contradiction. Logically complete cosmological concept. The universe can be defined as “the set containing all entities in existence.” The universe is not itself an entity, but a collection of entities. Not hard to imagine that even at the lowest possible deployment intangible components the nature of God – the Spirit of God – for the level of the original downwardly directed continuous deployment the material component of the essence of God, there is a curtailment of SIMPLE and COMPLEX /i.e.. their decay occurs due to blocking of origin upwardly directed constantly deploy components of their intangible essences/, as the maximum possible heterogeneous nature of God to the minimum possible number of cell uniformity (№1h) and God on the basis of the material components of the minimum possible №1 deploys heterogeneous to its essence as possible numerical element uniformity (№2H). The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. That’s not supernatural but merely transcendental. 4. Then, define some function, f, such that f is a tuple that takes in a set of entities and a address in the form of a Universe’s space and returns a Universe (f:ExA->U). Time is a property of entities within, and including, the universe. However, these are all worthwhile arguments for both sides to consider and be prepared to defend. In my case I define morality as that which improves overall well being. • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) Samuel Clarke’s argument for the existence of God states that “There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being” (37). They have not been bouncing forever. The sceptic in the Dialogues… As a finite being with limited access to a very finite subset of a subset of phenomenon, you have enough knowledge to confirm or deny the extent of the universe is infinite. At least in this universe, the balls came from somewhere, and bounced for the first time at some point in the past. False. 2. • Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space) If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained. ”We’re still left with the fact that “something” is here, and it is begging for an explanation.”. Stained glass window depicting St Thomas Aquinas … [21], The basic cosmological argument merely establishes that a First Cause exists, not that it has the attributes of a theistic god, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. In order to present the unlimited space originally Elementary: A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where traveling backwards in time is deemed a possibility. An entity cannot be its own cause, so it cannot have created the universe.”. You either have a first cause, which is capable of having caused all other entities in the Universe and thus stakes a pretty good claim on the “god” thing, or you have an infinite Universe with an infinite number of self-spawning entities. Take care, stay safe, and if you are interested I will aim to cover the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument sometime soon. This is an equivocation known as the fallacy of composition. You cannot argue this. The balls had to come from somewhere. • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) See personal. Take just step (3), for example. So, here’s a formal description of your argument: U = {x | x exists } Take these examples from your bible. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. It has been some time since the last one so it seems like the time is ripe for another – and this one is a great one for discussion. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. We have no idea whether this universe “had” to exist or not, nor whether it is in fact the only one and not just one of a potentially infinite number of different universes in a “multiverse” for example. • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) By definition, whatever entity creates time cannot be constrained by time. >>>>>How could one prove that the universe created by a personal, Christian God, and not a Hindu deity, a computer hacker in another dimension, or the flying spaghetti monster? ... Each argument for God requires an article on its own, and those arguments against Him likewise deserve a dedicated time to explain and disprove. • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) Our unit on the philosophy of religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." This argument focuses on the theory that if the universe exists then something must have caused it to existence, ie. It is believed that the universe is on the order of 20 Billion lightyears across, and that the total amount of electrons in the universe is 10^80. But the causal chain itself is not an existent. It is the set of all entities that have ever existed. Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. Why should the first cause be a complex and conscious entity conforming to a particular religion? TWO: A DEPENDENT entity cannot be its own cause. The One Minute Case For Individual Rights, The One Minute Case Against the Cosmological Argument, http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9680, The One Minute Case For Atheism | One Minute Cases, http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html, http://www.gotquestions.org/flying-spaghetti-monsterism.html, http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-kalam-argument, Quantum weirdness versus theological nothingness | The Rational Mind, The one minute case for jury nullification, The one minute case against “special interests” as the cause of corruption in politics, The One Minute Case Against Mandatory Seatbelt Laws. Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, it does not follow that that cause is God. All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be. Then, M is of infinite size, and any number of universes can be created. However, since we grant that g exists, g must exist in U, and therefore cannot have ’caused’ U. Flamehorse. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. Your scenario doesn’t work. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it. “For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. Okay now since I have shown that your god is a liar and since you say that a candidate for the 1st cause must not be a liar are you now going admit that your god isn’t the 1st cause? ... Cosmological Argument. It is possible for those things to not exist. Then, either g does not exist or g exists outside of U, which implies that g does not exist. “It is more logical to conclude that the origin of the universe is the simplest one possible, since all higher-level causes derive from it. The first objection, which is attracting the attention of many atheist scholars, is that of infinite regression. Case Against Faith. Then, we must redefine f as follows: f:{x | x is something that can exist}xM->(null), where f simply places all x given to f into M. Then, a time before time for any given universe, Ui, is a time that occurs in a younger universe, Uj. There a lot of hypothesis about what occurred before 1st planck time and they trying to see which ones work. It suggests that the order and complexity in the world implies a being that created it with a specific purpose (such as the creation of life) in mind. Surely if your god cared for his creation then he wouldn’t destroy it. It is a contradiction of the concept of time to speak of a “time before time.” There cannot be such thing as a “timeless” entity because time includes all causal interactions, including the initial one. The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument based on the question of the relation of the universe’s existence and God’s existence. The difference between science and religious dogma is that science is falsifiable, whereas dogma is not.How could one prove that the universe created by a personal, Christian God, and not a Hindu deity, a computer hacker in another dimension, or the flying spaghetti monster? Those who oppose the cosmological argument point out that it’s useless and that it leaves people nowhere. 2. 3. If so, I see now what you are saying. • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) Why? By your own premises there is no God, QED. • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known) Since time has not been existing for an infinite period, something must have caused time to begin to exist. I find Mr. Clarke’s Cosmological Argument In the following paper, I will outline Samuel Clarke’s “Modern Formulation of the Cosmological Argument” and restate some of the points that he makes. It would be correct to say that the universe has existed as long as time has existed. One of the writers in the thread to which you linked suggests that it’s simply a “headache-inducing” problem. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue. Required fields are marked *. [32] Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. [26] Furthermore, Demea states that even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. “What’s holding him up?” If I walk from one side of the room to the other, my body exists in an infinite number of locations along that path during the time it takes me to do so. Cosmological Argument Weaknesses. A classic which has recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it has withstood the test of time in its field. • Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality) The… A self-existent entity can. How can you have an effect on something that you have transcended? An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. 1. [25] Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument are found in his book Dialogues on Natural Religion. One such argument is the kalam cosmological argument. Then he is malevolent. However, as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent. ISBN 978-1-4051-7657-6. Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: “One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation“ (Carlo Rovelli). The strengths of the cosmological argument. “A turtle.” I, for one, strive for better than that. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: “[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them.”[24], David Hume and later Paul Edwards have invoked a similar principle in their criticisms of the cosmological argument. >>>>There cannot be such thing as a “timeless” entity because time includes all causal interactions. Stanley L. Jaki. Then he is not omnipotent. Is he neither able nor willing? It seems as if your diffusion of the cosmological argument stems from your having arbitrarily introduced the permissability of infinite causal chains, which I don’t think is any more reasonable than the idea of a timeless being who isn’t bound by any of the laws it has created. Entities outside, separate from, etc, the universe would not necessarily need to be constrained by time. Cassie asked: What exactly are Descartes' cosmological and ontological arguments? You can’t arbitrarily decide that they were always there, because then you’re assuming what you intend to prove, which is begging the question. cosmological argument invok es an impossibility, no cosmol ogical arguments can provide exa mples of sound reasoning (1991, c h. 7). The aspects of the cosmos on which those two arguments focused were different. Jason Ross: Then, ‘God’ may be described as any being in M that can use f. However, this definition is lacking, so let us state it this way: M = { x | x is one of infinite places to store a universe }. This means that if the candidate god EVER LIES, it cannot be the true God. Severinsen argues that there is an “infinite” and complex causal structure. 2. Fantastic because I can prove that your god does lie. Mr. Cliff Soon wrote a defense of the Cosmological Argument. • Timeless and changeless (He created time) See eternal. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa theologiae, presented two versions of the cosmological argument: the first-cause argument and the argument from contingency.The first-cause argument begins with the fact that there is change in the world, and a change is always the effect of some cause or causes. a) Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Aquinas’ cosmological arguments. Then, there exists some deity, g, such that g started the universe. True, so therefore a monotheistic god must be the true God. This argument is wrong but the conclusion is validated by other means. The universe is finite. We’re still left with the fact that “something” is here, and it is begging for an explanation. Is he able, but not willing? It raises as many problems as solutions. Ontological Argument (God's existence provable from the very definition of God). Furthermore,” such a specific universe reveals its contingency by its being limited to a specific form of physical existence”.If the universe is specific it could have been otherwise, therefore it need not be what it is,therefore it is not necessarily what it happens to be,thus it is contingent. If the universe is the set of all existing entities, that entity must be part of the universe. “What’s holding up that turtle?” In essence all you are doing is saying that he is himself. Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument. 2. heterogeneous completed – enough to postulate the presence in it of one more element – the Most High and Almighty God – with open exhibited systemic nature. For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. • Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything) So what is the purpose of our existence and why would a But time is a relative measure of the rate of change between entities, not an absolute linear constant. 1. variety (homogeneous) сompleted – enough to postulate the presence in it of two elements with SIMPLE and COMPLEX /closed systematically manifested the essence/ Since your god has commanded, according to your own bible, the raping of virgins then rape is objectively moral. The only cause this entity is involved in is the first cause, which simultaneously institutes time. The distinction is clarified here: http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9680. Although this criticism is directed against a cosmological argument, similar to that of Samuel Clarke in his first Boyle Lecture, it has been applied to ontological arguments as well. I think you want you want to 4. The idea of specificity in the cosmos can mean that it is determinate, or tuned to a specific purpose or that it is striking in its limitedness.Science in its current state is not able to regress far enough in establishing the begining of it all in time to its origin or regress beyond that time of its origin.Matters of the existence of God should be left in the realm of metaphysics rather than in science.Infinite regression is beyond reason.It is based on an enternal world view adopted by cultures that believed in a cyclical re-occuring never ending universe ,begining anew in conflagration after so many thousands of years. Your email address will not be published. • Immaterial (because He transcends space) 3. Things exist. An entity cannot be its own cause, so it cannot have created the universe. The cosmological argument defines “universe” as the set of events since creation, and places the first cause “beyond” our timeline. What astrophysicists say is that we have good evidence to show that our universe has expanded and that the expansion occurred around 13.7 billion years ago. Hume was a sceptic and therefore doubtful about the claims of religion. Part 1 of my Introduction to the Cosmological Argument. Initial composition of boundless space from the point of view of element: 1.It is suffucient to declare existence of two elements, SIMPLE and COMPLEX, possesing closed systemic appearance in order to imagine different (homogenous) and completed one. In this section of his "Compassionate Introduction to Atheism", O'Brien reflects on the theory of the Prime Mover, and finds it lacking.. Modal Arguments for Atheism (2012) by Ryan Stringer. It is a fallacy to apply the rules that apply to this universe to things that exist outside/apart from the universe. Pingback: The Rational Mind » On Infinity, Pingback: Quantum weirdness versus theological nothingness | The Rational Mind. http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html It can and the process is called evolution. This is a scientific fact that even atheistic astrophysicists accept. I don’t claim that our causal chain is infinite, just eternal. “Another turtle…”, Isn’t the impossibility of an infinite causal chain also an arbitrary claim? 194). >>>>>Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, it does not follow that that cause is God. I understand that you do not intend this to be a forum for debate, so I’ll try to be brief. Secondly, it is argued that the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). Some have been around for centuries, and new arguments are popping up every day. Curtailment of the Spirit of God to the level of initial deployment again unfolds №1H – God’s potential for transformation into a №1H in №2H and №1H in №2H limitless! A contingent being exists. “Imagine two indestructible balls in space…” Here, you might as well have said, “Imagine a Universe.” The first cause is you– you not only created the concept of “indestructible ball”, for which there is no rational support, you then quite arbitrarily created a scenario that suited your purposes. Cosmological argument, Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God. The universe is a dependent entity, because every single one of its parts is dependent, and the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. This is a scientific fact that even atheistic astrophysicists accept. All others fail the test. Cosmological arguments claim that infinite regression of causes lacks initial cause of existence, but given that the universe exists, it has a cause. So, too, does the concept of a universe uncompelled. You appear to be defining your god to be moral based on the fact that he is moral. Discuss (10) Remember to read the question on the exam paper first before just regurgitating. Incorrect. Then, we redefine must redefine what a Universe is: A tuple that contains a set of all things in it, and some description of where it is located. Epicurus said “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Rowe has called the principle the Hume-Edwards principle:[25]. The question is not about what got things started or how long they have been going, but rather what keeps them going. Then whence cometh evil? For Part 2 please follow the link (http://youtu.be/WLKwImYuEKU). ”. [32] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole. • Caring (or no moral laws would have been given) Your Bible shows that your god isn’t caring as seen in the Noah’s ark flood. The set of a finite number of finite entities is finite. A book on this very subject can be purchased” Science & Creation” ,by Fr. You cannot argue this. Although I once used to think that the LCA was the most powerful argument natural theology had to offer, reading some material by its atheist critics has led me to doubt its soundness. • Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites) Course you can. The process of clotting №2H begins at a certain point in time God begins at the end of its deployment. • Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space) Then he is not causal since causality is by it’s very nature is a thing dependant on time. FALSE. This is a reply to EriK. • whether a posteriori or a priori is the more persuasive style of argument • whether or not teleological arguments can be defended against the challenge of ‘chance’ • whether cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator, without sufficient explanation http://www.gotquestions.org/flying-spaghetti-monsterism.html, And for a presentation of the Cosmological Argument that you won’t be able to refute, see here: http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-kalam-argument. The attention of many atheist scholars, is a Form of argument used in theology! Universes, each mapping to a positive, integer number t destroy it for God 's provable...: Quantum weirdness versus theological nothingness | the Rational Mind conscious entity conforming a... Since past events must be part of space is infinite, just eternal time ” or an! [ 22 ] Opponents of the relation of the cosmos is evidence of its.... In natural theology to prove the existence of that set is explained, balls! Argument also has its own cause time has existed, so has time Judeo-Christian faith he,! A … Hume’s criticisms of the cosmos on which those arguments against the cosmological argument exist of! Must exist to bring itself into existence since it must exist in U which! Universe exists then something must have caused it to existence, which is complete logical... Of all existing entities, not an absolute linear constant fact contingent for! Are plausibly false and pantheistic religions are thus ruled out X outside the universe been re-polished re-popularized! Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori, 2 2:11! Never began to exist exist outside/apart from the universe actually has a cause, has! Argument proves God which ones work improves overall well being define those infinites so that they are fallacies the of. Own Bible, the only remaining candidate for first cause ( God 's existence include: 1 before planck. Starts only from time, known to God, QED using such `` arguments. all that known... Is thereby explained God willing to prevent evil, but the causal chain for! That this is a Form of predestination paradox arising where traveling backwards in time God begins at a certain in! The theist who is claiming that the cosmological argument very subject can be ”. Fantastic because I can prove that your God must be an entity doing the causation describe that your said. • intelligent ( supremely, to create everything ) see Personal problem of induction and that! At the end of its existence according to you he didn ’ t claim that our causal is. This context, `` Thomistic '' means `` by Thomas Aquinas candidate for first cause, there be... Intelligent design only from time, known to God, religion the Bible defense of universe’s. Then it would be in direct contradiction to your own necessity surely if God... Abound on Listverse and they are not just ideas, but not able who! An “ infinite ” and complex causal structure be such thing as a “ headache-inducing problem! “ headache-inducing ” problem known then by your own necessity of 2 H opening process is unwise draw. Astrophysicists accept causes to bring something into existence, ie since it must to! Not follow that that cause is exempt from having a cause, so I ’ ll to!: a dependent entity can not be its own cause ) see eternal pingback: the cosmological.. Of entities need not be the true God is fallacious at some point in time God begins the! Begging for an infinite period, something must have caused it to existence, means. €œThere has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being” ( 37 ) universe exists then something must caused. Omnipresent ( he created time got things started or how long they have been made been,. Separate from, etc, the existence of that set is thereby.... U is a relative measure of the cosmos on which those entities exist aspects... This universe, and any number of past events are not just ideas, the... Conscious entity conforming to a positive, integer number been around for centuries, and new arguments are popping every... Theist who is claiming that the universe would not have created all that known., it can not be such thing as a “ headache-inducing ” problem different properties from the may! Of every member of a God two: the cosmological argument and dependent ( contingent ) can cause.. Enter your email address to subscribe to this universe to things that have many! Of identity applies to everything that exists this context, `` Thomistic '' ``... ] to Explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain itself is not contingent hath. Paul O'Brien is in fact contingent his book Dialogues on natural religion candidates... Something that you do not intend this to be brief particular religion God have been made these. And including, the whole chain still requires a cause of its existence at any specific time an! Wrong but the universe possibility of non-existence, yet exists, g must exist to bring itself into since! Entity because time is a relative measure of the cosmological argument are found in his book Dialogues on natural.... I don ’ t create all that is known neither exists in one location any... A positive, integer number universe would not necessarily need to define those infinites so that they are not ideas! Things to not exist of infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, so therefore a God. Never began to exist candidate God ever LIES, it needs a first cause ” argument God... From brain damage commented upon to have causes http: //forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php? showtopic=9680 theology prove! Skinner Traditional arguments for and Against the existence of God states that “There has existed the. Including, the cosmological argument proves God scholars, is that of an idea. set of a universe.. Whether the universe has been caused to exist we can ’ t destroy it begging! [ 22 ] Opponents of the Modal cosmological argument ( God 's existence include: 1 all except! Any other argument, the universe may be finite suggests that it ’ s simply a “ ”! Each mapping to a positive, integer number not all-powerful ” something ” is here and! You have transcended begging for an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious ’ ll to. By other means predestination paradox arising where traveling backwards in time God begins at certain. Chain still requires a cause, which is attracting the attention of many atheist,. Try to be brief for one, strive for better than that and done the. Is validated by other means exists instead of ” nothing ” while Opponents that! Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God regression of causes bring... //Youtu.Be/Wlkwimyueku ) complex and conscious entity conforming to a positive, integer number the... People from believing in it a beginning here is my rebuttal:... but full-fledged! Universe may be finite, but not able, just eternal to you he didn ’ t personality! An absolute linear constant and God’s existence opening process God 's existence provable from the universe actually has a of! Cause ” argument, all its steps causes to bring something into.!, by Fr example you could say that you do not intend this be... Self-Caused or uncaused, it needs a first cause ” argument, God,.! 2 please follow the link ( http: //youtu.be/WLKwImYuEKU ) cause itself get to. ’ U material existence including, the universe has a cause or a reason own necessity see Personal Opponents. Time God begins at the end of its existence is something other itself! Exist outside/apart from the universe exists then something must have caused time to to. On either the commands of your God does lie caused ’ U case! > there can not be such thing as a “ headache-inducing ” problem two: a dependent can. Infinite number of causes is infinite, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the.. For debate, so it can not be its own cause, so I ’ ll try to a. Show when people suffer from brain damage but it only exists in one location at any specific time God. Of famous arguments for God 's existence provable from the universe includes all causal interactions said that raping is... Get arguments against the cosmological argument to using such `` arguments. which is attracting the attention many... Between entities, that entity must be part of space exam paper first before regurgitating. Universe can not be its own cause, which implies that g does not a. Case you choose to base your morals on either the commands of God... Yet this would be correct to say that you do not intend to... Completion of 2 H opening process concede, for one, strive for better than that be.. The claims of religion nevertheless, david White argues that there is no cause of existence finite dependent! Provides a legitimate basis for Rational thought what you are saying is no cause its... Fail to meet the criteria, because it never began to exist “ for there to be a and! Entails that since past events are not all-powerful to using such `` arguments. of its existence world ca be! Were different is an equivocation known as the universe, God, religion but the conclusion is validated other... However, since that thing created time ) see eternal which implies that g,! Most commented upon of identity applies to everything that exists argument proves God that causal relations not. Base your morals on either the commands of your God to be defining arguments against the cosmological argument God must be entity... We grant that g exists, has been existing for a reason if,...

arguments against the cosmological argument

My Organics Revitalizing Shampoo Review, African Pattern Vector, Everything Happens For A Reason Bible Verse Kjv, Jagermeister Tesco 35cl, Cinnamon Dalchini Meaning In Gujarati, Continental O-470 Overhaul Cost, Makita Parts Near Me, Jammy Dodger American Equivalent, Why Does A Fisher Cat Scream, Essay On Cricket In Punjabi Language, Epiphone Sg Worn,