The Cosmological Argument

Yeah, that’s true. I think what it comes down to is that Craig is taking “The Universe began to exist” as premise without support, not because it’s composed of things that began to exist, but because that’s the most popular current scientific position- Big Bang, evidence against a collapse, and all that. I’ve seen him challenged on that premise before, and he defends it in the usual ‘infinite regress’ kind of way, so I think his argument ultimately collapses into the aquinas’ cosmological argument when you prod at it.

I might be wrong, but I don't think circularity works that way.  There's a difference between basing an argument on an object X, and basing an argument on the existence of some quality, that as it turns out only X has. Lemme see...

P1 The Best ever President of the United States would have to be a man who accomplished X.
P2 As it turns out, only Taft accomplished X.
C: Ergo, Taft is the Best ever President of the United States.

I really don’t think this argument is guilty of inserting as a premise what it is trying to prove, and I don’t think the cosmological argument is either. I do NOT think P1 is equivalent to “The Best President of the United States would have to be Taft”, even if it entails it.

Nothing. In that argument, the idea that some things don’t have causes is endorsed in the first premise.

Again, the cosmological argument doesn’t put forward the idea that uncaused things is problematic. Not at all. It is frequently accused of doing such, but i think Dawkins got that ball rolling by not actually reading the thing. The idea isn’t “Everything needs a cause, so let’s find one for the universe.” the idea is “Clearly lots of things have causes, something that wasn’t caused must have been the origin of it.”

A) Unless it is about what they witnessed directly, I really don’t care what scientists, other philosophers, or theologians say and I very seriously don’t believe that they directly witnessed the universe beginning.
B) I know beyond all question that it didn’t begin to exist
C) If the only support for P2 that you have is “they said so”, then we have nothing to discuss.
D) This;

…is incoherent.

Do you believe dinosaurs once roamed the earth?

I don’t care about what you have to say, unless you are talking about what you directly witnessed. (Note the sarcasm).

That’s generally not how the scientific method works. Nor is it out reasoning in philosophy works.

Perhaps you should read Craig’s article about the kalam cosmological argument. I recommend it to you, because I don’t think we’re getting anywhere here on our own. I think you will learn something, and in general, I think you need to “get out of the house” so to speak, when it comes to opening yourself to how people are conducting their thinking and communicating.

This link is useful:

The Eistein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) Paradox or how it isn’t one

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

Incidentally Many worlds (MWI) is a deterministic interpretation which is identical to the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI), the only difference is wave function collapse, in the latter this lack of classical non classical complementarity is explained as a measurement issue which resolves the uncertainty principles measurement effect. In many worlds the wave function is considered real and non local ie the mathematical formalism is the exact image of the evolution of the wave in the real world, in CI it is non local and non real, Bohr decides to formalise this as a complementarity issue aka a correspondance issue between the world of probability, causality and classical non quantum mechanics, ie put simply you cannot describe quantum systems with the mathematics of classical locally real systems such as the cosmic ballet of Newtons gravitational theories, there is a fundamental limitation on describing reality which appears to operate at the smallest scales. Which is probably why Einstein was so fundamentally against it, it appeared to contradict both special and general relativities laws in terms of the relation of causal effect to simultaneously inertial observers. It appears one or the other is wrong, or both, they don’t appear to be able to be both correct and provide a reality that is consistent with experiment and theory, the equations are annoyingly non linear and down right contradictory in our current physics, only field theory seems to have no trouble incorporating both physical theories mathematically or philosophically, to provide a complete ontology in terms of entropy, order and disorder and hence the direction of time.

Or to put it on Bohrs own words

Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe
Niels Bohr: stop telling God what to do with his dice Einstein.

:wink:

I think the most shameful thing about his article was that he spent 100% of it supporting P2 (“The universe began to exist”), by pretending that he was a scientist, (because half his support for it was scientific). He’s not a scientist, and he’s not qualified to report on the state of the art in scientific research. The shameful part was that he had almost nothing to say about P1. Unfortunately, P1 is the problem. The other half of his support for P2 was about infinite regress stuff. I don’t remember finding it at all convincing.

If an eternal God is not objectionable, would an eternal universe be?

If we take the Universe to be the set of all that exists, it can not be caused except by itself, because causation exists.

It can either be uncaused or self-caused.

Except that which causes causation cannot be caused. “Self-caused” is an oxymoron.

What is impossible is what causes what is possible.
Imbalanced potential causes change and imbalanced potential is eternal because balanced potential is impossible.

Yea… apart from the fact that it happens everyday…
Guess who caused my decision to order Thai food? You’ll never guess… it was me!

Well, apart from when it’s clearly and easily possible, sure.

Incoherent.

:icon-rolleyes:

In this case “self caused” would mean “caused by a part of itself”.
The cause must be the part before which no other part exists.

The first instance of this universe is its cause, and if the universe is all that exists this cause is part of it.

Von, I finally realize that when you say “incoherent” you mean “not common english”. I will find it much easier to interpret you from now on.

James that is a horrible position to take, you are reaching against logic there.

Or it can be eternal, in which case a cause is irrelevant.

Caused therefore requires “reason”.
Reason implies to think/ponder.
Reasoning, think, ponder and give the reason its purpose.
You look at creation, you see the moon and it is round or a circle. You question if the Earth is flat or a circle and therefore you develop the reason by applying a method. That method was to observe, document the passing of light into darkness. Therefore the human gave purpose to a system of time. They implied this purpose to the total of creation, yet the purpose is only observed from Earth.

Atmosphere = mass, mass is a theory of strings = sound, sound mass produces an evolved state = the self perpetuating instant = the immaculate.
Sound therefore via mass causes the immaculate to produce.
The immaculate = life continuation as the Holy State of observation.

Observer = astronomer, astronomer observes through the atmospheric sound and gains his own insight through atmospheric sound and therefore believes in his own observations made through atmospheric sound. Atmospheric sound therefore causes false witnessing because the Earth Life is the only Holy Life. Trying to imply the holy life to the cosmos was the greatest error that a human Philosopher ever undertook.

Helandhigh - in both cases, self-caused and uncaused, it must be eternal. Time is after all also part of it.
What’s certainly caused is its structure. The cause of this is implicit in its nature, what it is.

What I’m saying is that that it is is caused by what it is.
That is highly counterintuitive, but the only logical option.

== The Situation, the distribution of potentials and their affects.
… your only true God.

That is what it is in general, but “in the beginning”, the original cause must be somewhat of a self-cause, as in ‘‘by its own principles it can not not exist.’’

Well, I like that way of saying it. :sunglasses:

The confusion is with the notion that there was a “time” when absolutely nothing existed and then the universe began. That is an invalid thought. But in the chain of reasoning, there is a beginning wherein a fundamental principle brings about all else. That fundamental principle is what was called “God” by those above the masses in their understanding. The masses anthropomorphize, not the more educated.

I disagree that it is the only logical option, in fact I would suggest the only logical option is its antithesis.

Alahu akbar.

Aga Khan. :wink:

the only true God if there indeed is one ontologically or it is necessary by etiology is reason and logic, anything higher than that is clearly beyond reason, beyond comprehension, ineffable, unreasonable, or unimportant, nay inconsequential, nay pointless. Pick an adjective it is clearly the sum of that.

Still ignorance is bliss, which is why so many chose to devolve responsibility to their imaginary friends. O:)

“I refuse to countenance that God has given us the faculty of reason only to forgo it’s use.”

Some guy.

“Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science.”

The same guy who was probably referring if indirectly to the intellectually lazy, the ignorant, the indolent, the obtuse, the maladroit aka those who need to worship ononism.

“Allah” merely means “the sum of all spirit” also known as “Elohim” == “everything happening” = “The Situation”.
Also known as “the Holy Spirit” (aka “the whole of all spirit/behavior” = “The Situation”)