Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Eudaimonist]

Plenty of things begin to exist without a material cause, such as ideas, for instance.

What makes you think that ideas don't have a material cause?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I would hope ideas come from brains

And I would hope brains are material

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't see that as so. You are overreading the argument. It says "everything that begins to exist has a cause". That doesn't refer to something that is ordinary material object.

The premise requires us to consider what is meant by the term 'cause'. If the term 'cause' in the first premise refers to our intuitions about causality, then we are talking about material and efficient causes, or the interaction of matter and energy in space-time. If, by the end of the argument, the term 'cause' refers to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, then the arguer has performed a sleight of hand.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I see your point.

BTW, the Kalam cosmological argument is from Islam. I am not sure the way it is being presented is in keeping with the original argument. There are further Islamic arguments why the cause of the universe must be personal being rather than impersonal cause.

I'm aware of the origins of the argument, and I'm not convinced by the supplementary arguments given for asserting that the cause must be a person. This is where apologists play quick-and-dirty with exceptions by playing the supernatural card. We have no verified experience of a disembodied, immaterial, spaceless, and timeless mind. But that doesn't matter apparently, because this particular person is supernatural, and therefore exempt from the "rules" describing psychological entities within the universe. Okay, but if that's the way you want to play it, why not a Divine Flame? It radiates eternally, but has no source of fuel or ignition. We have no experience of such flames in the universe, but this Flame is supernatural, and therefore exempt from the "rules" describing fire within the universe. The Divine Flame clearly explains why the very early universe was so hot and dense, and its ethereal afterglow has been detected as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure, probabilities. When have I said otherwise? When have I ever tried to claim you could prove a Creator with the five senses?



What exactly do you mean by "natural method"? Remember, the Cosmological Argument is saying that the best explanation of the cause is God (based on the Teleological Argument). It's not ruling out all other possibilities.



No, I didn't. Look at the premises again:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) The universe had a cause
4) The best explanation of that cause is God

Now #2 can be conclusively proven true because we know that time began to exist. I pointed this out in an earlier post. You challenged #1, but the overwhelming majority of evidence is on my side nonetheless. #3 and #4, then, is really where your challenge lies.

As far as your statement "what would any object being 'caused' have to do with another object being caused," the answer is simple: if we detect a pattern whereby all (or nearly all) objects that begin to exist are "caused," then it follows that other objects are going to follow this pattern. Hence, we arrive at premise #3.



We're back where we started. The overwhelming majority (aka, everything else) in the universe has a cause. So again, the overwhelming probability is on my side.



I don't agree with you on this. Don't you agree that the things within the universe are a part of the universe?



So we'll have to disagree on whether or not the universe is subject to time. I would ask why you think that it isn't.



Very well, then: please tell me how we're supposed to explain a concept like "outside of time" which we've never experienced?

"Sure, probabilities. When have I said otherwise? When have I ever tried to claim you could prove a Creator with the five senses?"

You haven't that I've seen. It's just an interesting claim since you cannot determine the "probability" of something "being caused to exist." You haven't even tried.

"What exactly do you mean by "natural method"? Remember, the Cosmological Argument is saying that the best explanation of the cause is God (based on the Teleological Argument). It's not ruling out all other possibilities."

For the purposes of this discussion I'd say that a method of creating that doesn't involve an intelligent creator or the supernatural (by which I mean things like magic or miracles). I didn't realize your argument assumes that the Teleological argument is correct. Had you explained that at the start, I would've asked you to prove the Teleological argument first...since that's going to be logically necessary.

"Now #2 can be conclusively proven true because we know that time began to exist. I pointed this out in an earlier post. You challenged #1, but the overwhelming majority of evidence is on my side nonetheless. #3 and #4, then, is really where your challenge lies.

Unless you posted a bunch of evidence before I joined the thread, you haven't provided any evidence for premise 1. In fact, I've provided evidence that your first premise is false... and completely illogical. You seem to want to ignore the points I've made, but I'll gladly make them again. Time (as we know it) began to exist, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in another way before the big bang. Indeed, time may exist outside the universe in a manner unknown to us. Likewise, the universe (as we know it) began to exist...but like time, it's entirely possible it existed in another way before the big bang. We simply don't know.

"As far as your statement "what would any object being 'caused' have to do with another object being caused," the answer is simple: if we detect a pattern whereby all (or nearly all) objects that begin to exist are "caused," then it follows that other objects are going to follow this pattern. "

Ok. At first I just suspected that you didn't understand how probability works...now I know you don't understand how probability works. Here's a brief explanation, yet simple enough for a 3rd grade school child...

Suppose I have a six-sided die...what is the probability that I can roll a 3? Pretty easy right? 1/6. How did I get that number? I took the total number of possible outcomes (6) and divided it by the number of events taking place (1 roll of the die). This is the basic method for determining probability. Simple, right?

Now imagine that I had 100 dice...and after rolling 99 of them, they all came up the number 5. What is the probability that I will roll a 5 with the very last die? Did you think it was 99%? Well it's not...it's still just 1/6. The other dice have no effect on the outcome of any of the other dice.

Your explanation for how you're determining probability of the universe being caused is kind of like the second example. You think that since all these other things in the universe are caused, it provides evidence that the universe itself is caused.... it doesn't. In fact, not only does it not provide evidence...but that kind of reasoning is a logical fallacy (as my good friend Arch pointed out). Take a look at this....

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This occurs when you think one of the properties of a part of something applies to the whole of something. I've tried explaining it to you, but your answer so far has been "I disagree". You disagree with what? Basic logic?

"Very well, then: please tell me how we're supposed to explain a concept like "outside of time" which we've never experienced?

I don't know what you're asking me here. It's a made-up meaningless concept. You want me to tell you how we should be able to explain someone's made-up meaningless concept?

I tend to let the person who made it up explain it. If they cannot, I dismiss it...as it's not worthy of my (or yours for that matter) consideration.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't see that as so. You are overreading the argument. It says "everything that begins to exist has a cause". That doesn't refer to something that is ordinary material object.

All of the examples used to generalize to the "everything" are humans building things out of everyday ordinary materials. If "everything" means something different than that, there's a bait and switch in progress.

Plenty of things begin to exist without a material cause, such as ideas, for instance.

Please demonstrate an idea not created by a human brain.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua - He's correct. The KCA does engage in the fallacy of special pleading. It says that God is exempt from creation, yet the universe isn't. That's special pleading and kills the entire KCA.

Nope. It simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is confirmed daily by personal experience and also repeatedly by science.

If it's about what we do know, then the entire KCA is invalidated by the first two premises.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

We don't know for sure that either of those are true.

p1 is confirmed daily by personal experience and by scientific evidence, and p2 is confirmed by not only two philosophical arguments but also by 2 scientific evidences and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Do you have something against science...or is it just when it leads to implications that you wish to deny?

You'll find an excellent refutation of the KCA at Cosmological Kalamity

Please read it and if there is anything about it you don't understand, I'll be happy to explain.

I don't do links. Make your case here.

 

[Joshua260]

So...

I'm not sure exactly when you jumped in on this conversation, but did you happen to read the articles I linked to as support for my statements? I'm guessing you didn't since the first one actually addresses the point you've made here about virtual particles being placeholders for theoretical models. .

No, I didn't read all of the previous posts. In any case, no one has ever proven that anything has ever come into existence without a cause.

Also, had you read my posts just a few pages back, you'd see that I'm not trying to dispute any prevailing scientific theories. I merely took the position of "I don't know" and then provided evidence that the universe may have always existed.

Edit- if you don't feel like looking back through a few pages, I should have those articles bookmarked. I've found that's generally a good idea for posters who're late to the party.

I might look at the link if you posted that. I'm wondering what kind of evidence would overturn the argument against infinite regress, the red-shift evidence, the background radiation, and the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Joshua260]

Even if that were possible (and for the sake of your position I'll assume it is) you're still saying that the universe began to exist. The meaning of that claim itself implies that the universe didn't always exist.

So now we have a moment "before" the universe exists...and your theoretical moment when the universe is created and begins to exist. Even if all we have are these two moments, they still occur in a temporal sequence....ergo, time.

Back to square one.

I don't see why some atheists have a hard time understanding this. The moment that universe began to exist (t0) is the exact moment that God created it (t0).

I find that some people have a hard time with that, so let's think about a pool table with two balls. One begins to roll fast and hard at t0 and smacks another at t2. So two questions:
1. exactly when did the first ball smack the second ball and impart its energy? t=t2.
2. exactly when did the second ball absorb the energy from the first ball and begin to move? t=t2.

The effect of the universe coming into existence is the exact same moment that God brought it into existence. Both the cause and effect occurred concurrently.

 

[Joshua260]

What about an efficient cause without a material cause (i.e., creatio ex nihilo)?



You seem to misunderstand both what atheists have said and the prevailing scientific view. We don't deny that the universe "began to exist". What we question, however, is what apologists take this to mean.

I'm afraid you didn't quite make yourself clear to me about what you were asking. If you would clarify, I will try to answer, but beware that this thread is so busy that I hope I don't miss when/if you respond.

 

[Joshua260]

No they're not. They're not bound by space-time. If you demand exceptions, why can't anyone else?

I beg to differ. Although I'm not saying that the FSM is bound by space-time, but he is material...after all, he's made of spaghetti. However the rest, to the best of my knowledge were always within space-time. If you think not, you can cite a reference if you like. However, even if they did exist outside of space-time, I have a problem with them since none of them were infallible. Even Zeus could be injured by another god. Therefore, none of them seem to have the omnipotence that one would expect of a being that created the universe. I find it really difficult to believe that a Greek god created the universe and also a subordinate being (who did not have the power to create the universe) who could defeat him. The guys just don't measure up.

 

[Joshua260]

In other words, you're speculating.

I've said before that the KCA does not necessarily point to the Christian god. But the argument rules out some and not others.

It also rules out Yahweh.

I don't see how.

How so? You just stated that it is incoherent to reason that something we are familiar with from within the universe (e.g., an intelligent agent) could have brought the universe into being.

God exists beyond this universe. What I said is that it is incoherent that something that exists could have created itself. Are you disagreeing with that? If so, please explain.

 

[Joshua260]

It's funny how apologists sometimes laugh at atheists, saying "What? You think the universe came from nothing?", only to later describe an "entity" that sounds like the very definition of nothing.

He doesn't seem like nothing to me if he has causal properties.

So do countless other supernatural explanations.

I always hear that, but no atheist seems willing to list any, at least any that pass the criteria of the KCA.

 

[Joshua260]

How did you verify that this entity did not begin to exist?

The argument against infinite regress suggests it.

Well, you can speculate, yeah... But anyone can do that.

So what? Yes, I'm speculating about what the cause of the universe would be. Geesh! One atheist complains saying that I'm presupposing the existence of God in the KCA (which I'm not), and the other gets on my case if I don't. I'm simply using the KCA to extrapolate out what traits the cause would have, and it so happens that those traits limit us to only a few possibilities. All of this I have admitted several times. While the KCA does not rule out the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian gods, it does rule out temporal-material causes.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of it's existence.

The above argument tells us nothing about the nature or identity of the cause. It could simply be read as saying that the origin of the universe is mysterious and in need of explanation – a banal conclusion that one could accept without making any theological commitments.

Yes, it does. It implies that the cause was immaterial, timeless, powerful, uncaused, and even personal.

 

[Joshua260]

Do you have any examples of anything beginning to exist? Seems that all we have here in the universe are things changing shape and form. The only things which legitimately can be said to come to exist out of nothing are virtual particles and similar quantum phenomena, and at that level cause and effect doesn't work the way you're claiming here.

So where do you get the idea that this premise has anything to do with reality?

People often get caught by this misunderstanding. Whether or not something came out of nothing or its' just a reordering of existing material is actually irrelevant. The fact remains that anything that begins to exist, even like a foal, a painting, a house, a car, etc. has a cause of it's coming into existence. None of these things just come into being for no reason. So p1 stands.

 

[Joshua260]

The premise requires us to consider what is meant by the term 'cause'. If the term 'cause' in the first premise refers to our intuitions about causality, then we are talking about material and efficient causes, or the interaction of matter and energy in space-time.

You're the one who is limiting the cause to matter and energy within space-time, not the proponent of the KCA. So you rule out other types of causes from the outset. Why do you do that?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I'm aware of the origins of the argument, and I'm not convinced by the supplementary arguments given for asserting that the cause must be a person. This is where apologists play quick-and-dirty with exceptions by playing the supernatural card. We have no verified experience of a disembodied, immaterial, spaceless, and timeless mind. But that doesn't matter apparently, because this particular person is supernatural, and therefore exempt from the "rules" describing psychological entities within the universe. Okay, but if that's the way you want to play it, why not a Divine Flame? It radiates eternally, but has no source of fuel or ignition. We have no experience of such flames in the universe, but this Flame is supernatural, and therefore exempt from the "rules" describing fire within the universe. The Divine Flame clearly explains why the very early universe was so hot and dense, and its ethereal afterglow has been detected as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

I think this post captures the frustration I sometimes feel looking through some of these threads.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't see why some atheists have a hard time understanding this. The moment that universe began to exist (t0) is the exact moment that God created it (t0).

I find that some people have a hard time with that, so let's think about a pool table with two balls. One begins to roll fast and hard at t0 and smacks another at t2. So two questions:
1. exactly when did the first ball smack the second ball and impart its energy? t=t2.
2. exactly when did the second ball absorb the energy from the first ball and begin to move? t=t2.

The effect of the universe coming into existence is the exact same moment that God brought it into existence. Both the cause and effect occurred concurrently.

Was there a "time" (for all that term is worth) before t=0 where God might have decided to create the universe but had not yet gone through with it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I didn't read all of the previous posts. In any case, no one has ever proven that anything has ever come into existence without a cause.



I might look at the link if you posted that. I'm wondering what kind of evidence would overturn the argument against infinite regress, the red-shift evidence, the background radiation, and the second law of thermodynamics.

Ask and ye shall receive...

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? - Scientific American from that page...

"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy...."

It's interesting and short, I suggest you take a gander.

Also...

Phys.Org Mobile: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

That made big headlines this year. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon, I just brought it up to our friend Achilles because he kept insisting that the universe had to have "begun to exist". I explained that it probably began to exist in its current state, but could've existed in another state before. The jury is still out on that question.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

God exists beyond this universe. What I said is that it is incoherent that something that exists could have created itself. Are you disagreeing with that? If so, please explain.

Does God exist?

Please don't qualify it with "beyond the universe" or "outside of time" because neither you nor I understand what that means. Answer yes or no, does God exist like you and I exist? That is, as an independent and objective reality.