4. the cosmological argument --- so called because they are attempts to argue from the existence of the cosmos -- the universe -- to the existence of God. 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. Cosmological Argument – Every beginning has a beginner. 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. 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. Entities outside, separate from, etc, the universe would not necessarily need to be constrained by time. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. A self-existing entity would not have created itself, because it never began to exist. “What’s holding him up?” 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. We can’t tallk about “an X before time” or “an X outside the universe” because they are fallacies. For Part 2 please follow the link (http://youtu.be/WLKwImYuEKU). BTW, the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe. The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time. • Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites) Personalities are a product of a mind as we can show when people suffer from brain damage. The universe had a … The distinction is clarified here: http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=9680. An entity cannot be its own cause, so it cannot have created the universe.”. 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. Mr. Cliff Soon wrote a defense of the Cosmological Argument. Ontological Argument (God's existence provable from the very definition of God). The specificity of the cosmos is evidence of its reality. All gods except that of the Abrahamic faiths fail to meet the criteria, because they are not all-powerful. Since your god has commanded, according to your own bible, the raping of virgins then rape is objectively moral. Other verses which show your god lies are Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11. It has simply always existed, apart from any causal chain. You appear to be defining your god to be moral based on the fact that he is moral. 3. The process of clotting №2H begins at a certain point in time God begins at the end of its deployment. 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. There a lot of hypothesis about what occurred before 1st planck time and they trying to see which ones work. [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. The universe is finite because the law of identity applies to everything that exists. [25] Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument are found in his book Dialogues on Natural Religion. Time is a property of entities within, and including, the universe. 3. 2. Cosmological argument, Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God. TWO: A DEPENDENT entity cannot be its own cause. Then an arbitrary universe, Ui, is defined as Ui = ({x | x exists in Ui’s space},(Ui’s space)). Jason Ross: 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. If the universe is the set of all existing entities, that entity must be part of the universe. 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). Then why call him God?”. [26] Furthermore, Demea states that even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. [27] To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. Take care, stay safe, and if you are interested I will aim to cover the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument sometime soon. Since time has not been existing for an infinite period, something must have caused time to begin to exist. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Also if I say that everything is depends on the great HS then can you really prove me wrong. 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. I, for one, strive for better than that. “Atlas.” This is a scientific fact that even atheistic astrophysicists accept. If your god said that raping kids is moral then it would be moral to rape kids (Judges 21:11). The strengths fo the cosmological argument outweigh the weaknesses. Take just step (3), for example. • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) 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. It would be correct to say that the universe has existed as long as time has existed. Then, M is of infinite size, and any number of universes can be created. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. The… • Immaterial (because He transcends space) 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. Is he both able and willing? 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. Anything else is not the universe. Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument. This is a scientific fact which you cannot argue. • 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. Now use those criteria to screen out the possible candidates. >>>>>Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, it does not follow that that cause is God. You have not objected to anything. • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known) Your email address will not be published. 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. So, here’s a formal description of your argument: U = {x | x exists } Secondly, it is argued that the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. Cosmological arguments claim that infinite regression of causes lacks initial cause of existence, but given that the universe exists, it has a cause. This argument focuses on the theory that if the universe exists then something must have caused it to existence, ie. [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. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue. Is he neither able nor willing? Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Samuel Clarke’s argument for the existence of God states that “There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being” (37). If so, I see now what you are saying. • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained. • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it) Your email address will not be published. 194). 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. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false. • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) That really doesn’t jell with your comment about your god being simple. 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. ISBN 978-1-4051-7657-6. Answer by Craig Skinner Traditional arguments for God's existence include: 1. Whatever that means. [1] Critics often press that arguing for the First Cause’s exemption raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt,[20] whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the various arguments, emphasizing that none of its major forms rests on the premise that everything has a cause. Critics of the Modal Cosmological Argument or Argument from Contingency would question whether the universe is in fact contingent. ” 3. • Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites) Course you can. Severinsen argues that there is an “infinite” and complex causal structure. In them Philo, Demea and Cleanthes discuss arguments for the existence of God. • Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver) How do you define that your god is moral? Cosmological concept which is complete from logical point of view. [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. Pingback: The Rational Mind » On Infinity, Pingback: Quantum weirdness versus theological nothingness | The Rational Mind. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. Tagged as atheism, cosmological argument, god, Religion. 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. It is possible for those things to not exist. I find Mr. Is he able, but not willing? Everything, he says, has a cause or a reason. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. Then, the question “What was there before the Universe?” makes no sense; the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. If the universe is the set of all existing entities, that entity must be part of the universe. The first objection, which is attracting the attention of many atheist scholars, is that of infinite regression. Traditional Cosmological Arguments. By definition, whatever entity creates time cannot be constrained by time. “A turtle.” Every finite and contingent being has a cause. [32] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate causes for the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes. 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. For example you could say that you have a set of rulers that are of infinite length but not infinite width. Craig, William Lane (2000). Neither sounds very good to me. There is a cause “outside the universe.”. The stylized “proof from the big bang” is: Both proofs contain several problematic claims: A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 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). You just need to define those infinites so that they are not conflict. [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. 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? There are a handful of famous arguments for the existence of a god. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. A book on this very subject can be purchased” Science & Creation” ,by Fr. I think you want you want to The sceptic in the Dialogues… Here you’re explicitly asking for a reason why ”something” exists instead of ”nothing”. 2. • Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation). ... Cosmological Argument. Cassie asked: What exactly are Descartes' cosmological and ontological arguments? 4. This argument is wrong but the conclusion is validated by other means. 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. They have not been bouncing forever. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2009). Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” 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) Yet this would be in direct contradiction to your own necessity. We’re still left with the fact that “something” is here, and it is begging for an explanation. 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. I don’t claim that our causal chain is infinite, just eternal. Then, there exists some deity, g, such that g started the universe. Arguments against. • Immaterial (because He transcends space) Yet you say he is a part of space. Then, either g does not exist or g exists outside of U, which implies that g does not exist. 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. Cosmological Argument Weaknesses. 2. 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. 1. Then he is not omnipotent. [29] White tried to introduce an argument “without appeal to the principle of sufficient reason and without denying the possibility of an infinite causal regress”. What they don’t say is that the universe actually has a beginning. [54] Immanuel Kant 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? It can and the process is called evolution. All polytheistic and pantheistic religions are thus ruled out. “the impossibility of an infinite causal chain is reasonable, not arbitrary, because the alternative contradicts all of my previous knowledge of the universe.”. “What’s holding up that turtle?” 2. You describe that your god must be the creator of the universe since he has the following properties. This is a reply to EriK. Required fields are marked *. Incidentally, Yahweh makes it clear that all the other “gods” are either man-made idols or demonic beings masquerading as angelic (‘godlike’) creatures. The cosmological, or “first cause” argument, is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God. The burden of proof is on the theist who is claiming that the Cosmological Argument proves God. But the universe has been existing for a finite amount of time. http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the … Each specific set of entities is discrete. Does he care about the staving. 1. 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.”. 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 }. • Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)”. 5 Arguments For and Against the Existence of God. Incorrect. 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. 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. Allah fails this test, leaving only YHWH of the Judeo-Christian faith. Our unit on the philosophy of religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. 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. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. 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. A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where traveling backwards in time is deemed a possibility. By your own premises there is no God, QED. All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be. Then whence cometh evil? Then he is malevolent. Rowe has called the principle the Hume-Edwards principle:[25]. The balls had to come from somewhere. 3. That thing could not be bound by time itself, since that thing created time. 4. That’s not an infinite number. • 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 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. • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity) 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. 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. An entity cannot be its own cause, so it cannot have created the universe. • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) A self-existent entity can. When all is said and done, the only remaining candidate for First Cause is Yahweh, the Creator God of the Bible. Some of these weaknesses are: 1. The universe cannot have created itself, but something with different properties from the universe could have created the universe. • Timeless and changeless (He created time) See eternal. 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. 1. According to you he didn’t create himself. 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. True, so therefore a monotheistic god must be the true God. What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… Epicurus said “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? ... Each argument for God requires an article on its own, and those arguments against Him likewise deserve a dedicated time to explain and disprove. Those who oppose the cosmological argument point out that it’s useless and that it leaves people nowhere. • Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver) 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! 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 is the set of all entities that have ever existed. But the causal chain itself is not an existent. The question is not about what got things started or how long they have been going, but rather what keeps them going. This is an equivocation known as the fallacy of composition. b. So, too, does the concept of a universe uncompelled. The universe is finite. One of the writers in the thread to which you linked suggests that it’s simply a “headache-inducing” problem. 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. 2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. • Timeless and changeless (He created time) You said “False. However, suppose this: there are an infinite number of disjoint universes, each mapping to a positive, integer number. All others fail the test. You cannot argue this. 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?). a) Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Aquinas’ cosmological arguments. In essence all you are doing is saying that he is himself. "If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on without out. Part 1 of my Introduction to the Cosmological Argument. Closing process starts only from time, known to God, starting from completion of 2 H opening process. 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. • Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality) Since you proclaim he is known then by your own logic he didn’t create all that is known. ONE: the universe is the set of all existing entities inside the 3-dimensional space in which those entities exist. It were better therefore never to look beyond the present material world." 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. Also see the Contingency and Moral arguments presented on that site. 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. One such argument is the kalam cosmological argument. [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. 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. Pingback: The One Minute Case For Atheism | One Minute Cases, Jason A contingent being exists. >>>>There cannot be such thing as a “timeless” entity because time includes all causal interactions. In my case I define morality as that which improves overall well being. I understand that you do not intend this to be a forum for debate, so I’ll try to be brief. “Who’s holding up the world?” 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. If we ask what causes something, it is some prior thing; and as we go back in the chain of … 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. The cosmological argument defines “universe” as the set of events since creation, and places the first cause “beyond” our timeline. In order to present the unlimited space originally Elementary: At least in this universe, the balls came from somewhere, and bounced for the first time at some point in the past. That is a theoretical construct (like infinity or a singularity in mathematics) rather than a discrete set of entities that we can point to. Case Against Faith. Surely if your god cared for his creation then he wouldn’t destroy it. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. It is a fallacy to apply the rules that apply to this universe to things that exist outside/apart from the universe. The horizontal cosmological argument, also called the kalam cosmological argument, is a little easier to understand because it does not require much philosophizing. 1. variety (homogeneous) сompleted – enough to postulate the presence in it of two elements with SIMPLE and COMPLEX /closed systematically manifested the essence/ 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. Some have been around for centuries, and new arguments are popping up every day. 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? The set of a finite number of finite entities is finite. “Another turtle…”, Isn’t the impossibility of an infinite causal chain also an arbitrary claim? • Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space) • Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything) It raises as many problems as solutions. Similarly, Michael Martin reasons t hat no current version of the The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. >>>>>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? Cosmological argument (the world can't be self-caused or uncaused, it needs a First Cause (God). For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. • 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 fact is that morality is always subjective. • Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything) So what is the purpose of our existence and why would a Religious topics abound on Listverse and they are frequently the most commented upon. Now, let us define a multiverse, M, such that M = { U | U is a Universe}. This is a scientific fact that even atheistic astrophysicists accept. But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything) See personal. Rape worsens well being and hence immoral. [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). Stained glass window depicting St Thomas Aquinas … During the history of philosophy and theology, many arguments for and against the existence of God have been made. 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. Here is my rebuttal: ... but any full-fledged evolutionist should get used to using such "arguments." How can you have an effect on something that you have transcended? The Teleological Argument (also popularly known as the Argument from Design) is perhaps the most popular argument for the existence of God today. “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. Then, we have a basis for creating universes that does not require a previous universe, and therefore a basis for intelligent design. Logically complete cosmological concept. That’s not supernatural but merely transcendental. 2. John Wiley and Sons. cosmological argument invok es an impossibility, no cosmol ogical arguments can provide exa mples of sound reasoning (1991, c h. 7). 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. Fantastic because I can prove that your god does lie. The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument based on the question of the relation of the universe’s existence and God’s existence. In your case you choose to base your morals on either the commands of your god or on his nature. 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. ”We’re still left with the fact that “something” is here, and it is begging for an explanation.”. /due to lack of knowledge of the English language was not able to correct the translation Implemented by Google/ 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! [34], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument. • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him) Why? Why should the first cause be a complex and conscious entity conforming to a particular religion? 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. [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]. The only cause this entity is involved in is the first cause, which simultaneously institutes time. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence. 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. The first cause argument is an argument for the existence of God associated with St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Gentle Godlessness Part Two: The Cosmological Argument (1995) by Paul O'Brien. “It is meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of entities, because time is a property of entities itself.”. The strengths of the cosmological argument. 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. In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". Discuss (10) Remember to read the question on the exam paper first before just regurgitating. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." Infinities do not actually exist. Nevertheless, David White argues that the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious. 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. 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. 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. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism. 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. >>>>>The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time. “For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. 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. 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). It is meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of entities, because time is a property of entities itself. But the universe has been existing for a finite amount of time. This means that if the candidate god EVER LIES, it cannot be the true God. 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. You’re nearly all the way there! Things exist. Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, it does not follow that that cause is God. 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. However, since we grant that g exists, g must exist in U, and therefore cannot have ’caused’ U. 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. “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 Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. Then, to add a universe to M, we simply state: M = M (union) f({things to be included},(where to place the new universe)). 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. You cannot argue this. Hume was a sceptic and therefore doubtful about the claims of religion. [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. False. Can you show me a personality not being dependent on a material existence. However, these are all worthwhile arguments for both sides to consider and be prepared to defend. 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. 2. a) Explain Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument. It would be correct to say that the universe has existed as long as time has existed. • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known). A classic which has recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it has withstood the test of time in its field. 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). Your scenario doesn’t work. Take these examples from your bible. 1. ”. 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). • Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality). The Cosmological Argument: In Hume’s Dialogues, part 9, the character Demea begins by summarizing the Cosmological Argument. This is problematic because this God, being an aspect of the existant universe contradicts your supposed contradiction. The aspects of the cosmos on which those two arguments focused were different. But it only exists in one location at any specific time. Two problems. Stanley L. Jaki. FALSE. [22] Opponents of the argument tend to argue that it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. 1. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. But time is a relative measure of the rate of change between entities, not an absolute linear constant.