A discussion on the Cosmological Argument

There are a few popular arguments that are used by Christian apologists that I hear often, in varying forms.  Recently I was contacted by someone that wanted to discuss what they see as my irrationality.  The core of this discussion seems to me to be a form of the Cosmological argument.  I'm publishing it here for comment.  The identity of the other party is intentionally omitted.  I will refer to him as Bill.  If you know Bill and comment on this post, please do so in a way that conceals his identity.

For clarity, the posts that are made by the other party will appear as quotes.

The discussion

Patrick, I see you are a physics major. do you agree that some entity (or thing if you prefer) must have the power of self existence?

[Bill], how are you doing?  I hope you are having, in your vernacular, a blessed day.  I certainly agree that things exist, although our perception of that is quite misleading.

Its been a good day thx. Perhaps I should rephrase my question. We all agree things exist. My question asked if you agree something must have the power to exist apart from any other thing (no dependencies of any kind).

To directly answer, no, I do not agree that something must have the power to exist as a singular, disconnected entity from all of, to use a Christian term, creation.

I understand the question, it is the underpinnings of the cosmological argument for the existence of an entity with some of the characteristics of the Christian God. The argument, as I understand it, is non-persuasive to me.

 

It presumes to deduce from a cause-and-effect mentality events in a pre-chronological existence. It uses words like "causally prior" when talking about the creation of time. It breaks down. We don't understand, I think can't understand, what it means to "be" before or outside of time. I even had to use the word "events" earlier when it really makes no sense to use that word outside of time. There are no words. It usually relies on big bang cosmology but then talks about the creation of the universe as if there were a time when the universe did not exist. We know of no such time. There are philosophical word games that can be played to try to convince one that we can make sense of causality without time, but they seem flawed at best, more often deceptive. We're bound in a frame that can only make sense of such things mathematically.

 

It requires every event to have a cause, but we witness seemingly uncaused events.

 

It elevates non-existence as a preferred state without establishing it.

 

It also seems to fall apart to me as it relies on contingent existence while I suspect superposition of our universe is more likely and also addresses fine tuning.

My question came to mind because you and [Bill's son] often refer to "reason" yet abandon reason for fear of where it leads. This is intellectual hypocrisy. "Reason" requires there to be something with the power of self existence. Failure to admit that places the advocate in the position of claiming "something came from nothing." That position is of course totally unreasonable (illogical). Cause and effect logic is the mainstay of philosophical, logical, scientific analysis and virtually all learning. You may find it unpersuasive, but that says more about the intellectual honesty of those on your side than about the viability of logic. Thank you for the discussion. It is as I thought it would be.

[Bill], this seems odd to me. What is the purpose of this conversation? Is it just to throw this out as an attack? Is there a real interest here in a conversation with me, or do you just see me as an enemy to be assaulted? I am more than willing, even eager, to have an in depth conversation on the basis of reason and the cosmological justification for the existence of God. I just don't know if that is your purpose.

Certainly no attack intended and I apologize if it came across that way. I just don't think there is a basis for a conversation. I obviously am a Christian, but that aside, I find anti-theists unable to discuss matters of origins without intellectual hypocrisy. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but rather as a description of the group think which seems to usually capture that community. The reason is obvious. If the same logical standards are applied, the obvious conclusion is that there MUST be an entity with the power of self existence. Carl Sagan admitted the same in his introductory sentences to the series "Cosmos" when he said it was all there ever has been and all there ever will be. For him, the Cosmos was his "god" (or whatever term you would choose). Logic and reason demands some similar conclusion. Some entity must be able to exist without dependency on something else. Only the most fanticiful ideas (virtually always disguised as "science") try to escape that conclusion. And to accept those requires even more "faith" than to admit the obvious. A person need not believe in any god to admit the obvious. That you folks try so hard to escape the obvious reveals even more.

It is not fair to classify me as an anti-theist. I care about many theists. I am married to a theist and am father to three children who attend church regularly and seem to be theists.

The claim that there must be something that is self-existent is an interesting one, and one you had not raised (in those exact terms, or if you did I misread it). You asked if there was something external to, I suppose at least, our universe. Unrelated. I neither believe in this nor disbelieve in it. I find no argument that compels me to agree with it, and no evidence that contradicts the possibility. Self-existent, the term itself, attributes to the state of non-being an elevated position. Does Self-non-existent mean anything?

 

I would use the term cosmos or universe. God implies a set of Omni-properties (all-knowing, all-powerful,...) that would not apply to the known natural world.

 

I am certainly open to evidence and argument that challenge my beliefs. I seek them out. I listen to Christian apologetics, usually debate, daily. I usually find both sides say some crazy things.

 

If you are interested in further communication, it might help to focus that. There are several threads here and that can be hard to follow, with both parties feeling they need to address every sub-point on multiple topics. Maybe you could start with a thorough description of why you think there must be an entity with the power of self existence. Feel free to go another direction of course, it just seems to be the underlying basis.

Don't know if this kind of discussion lends itself to messaging. It may require a beer. Simple (and complex) reason demands there be an origin. Something must have the power of self existence or else there could be nothing extant now. The proof of course is that there are things in existence now. Until the issue of the origin is answered, all other points are academic. In my opinion our discussion must begin there.

I like messaging because it lets people formulate their points. Conversations, while great for many things, tend not to pull out one's best reason.

Certainly things exist. Agreed. Certainly things that we perceive have the property of existence. It is when we take that and then state that "something must have the power of self-existence" that we get into a realm where things need to be proven, not just asserted.

 

At its heart we must first prove that nonexistence deserves elevation to a default state. Usually this takes the form of stating that the universe is contingent. That it may exist or that it may not exist. And that since it does exist, there must be something that necessarily exists that created it. Otherwise that thing that created it is also contingent, and you are back where you started.

 

But what then of the state of complete non-existence. That is another contingent state. If existing is contingent because it may not exist, then not existing is contingent because it may exist. How can the state of not existing be contingent if that would require a cause?

 

We get to a place where no matter what the state of the universe (or lack of universe) is, the logic requires a causal agent. If all possible data points to the same conclusion, the data does not provide evidential support for the conclusion [note this does not mean the conclusion is wrong].

 

It also does not account for superposition. The state of the universe is not contingent if it exists simultaneously in all possible states [where non-existence is one of those states].

Pat: on any subject it is relatively easy to claim a viable answer unknowable by simply demanding more "proof" or add contingent agents that dilute the point without clarifying the answer. This has long been recognized by in all areas of study. The "proof" trap is a standard that can never be overcome. Despite common perception, most criminal convictions are obtained by circumstantial evidence. Making decisions based on reason is not unreasonable. By the laws of reason (logic) it is reasonable to assert that because something exists now, there must be something that previously existed. I believe the issue of non-existence is academic (a logical trap that adds nothing and takes the discussion away from a viable answer). I reasonably assert again that until the issue of origin is resolved as a foundation, all else is distraction.

There's nothing obvious about asserting a prior cause for existence at t=0.

And by that I mean that to claim it logical one must show a set of defensible assertions by which the claim is deduced.

I would point you to Descartes. "I think, therefore i am." His entire treatise was to provide the logical point. It is beyond question by reason.

The question is not what Descartes thinks [Bill], it is what is your basis for the claim. If his basis is your basis, please post the details. I do not disagree that my mind exists. I do not see how that means the universe had a necessary and personal causally prior agent. It will be hard to move forward if you do not provide a rational argument that shows that deductively.

Pat, I am trying to avoid the laborious task of explanation. I was hoping you were familiar with Descartes treatise establishing the logical means by which we establish "being." Once being is established (per Descartes for example) it is axiomatic that there must be an origin. The maxim "ex nihilo nihil fit" applies that axiom. Atheists struggle because they see each step carry them toward an admittance of the existence of God. Their defense is to attempt to obfuscate the issue with demands for "proof", then claim things unknowable. 

My contention is that an admission that a point of origin MUST exist doesn't prove the Christian God, but it does destroy the common atheist tome by revealing reason and logic can lead no where else except a point of origin. We could argue about the origin itself, but not about the fact that it must exist in some form. Atheism fights desperately against reason and logic while claiming the opposite.

Please don't think that because I'm asking you to make the point yourself in a post that I am unfamiliar with it. I have exposed myself to many, many discussions on this topic. My desire is to understand exactly the argument that you are making. If you just refer to it, and it is not well-defined, there could be miscommunication. I can't know exactly what you have understood from all of Descartes' writings and how you then get from there to God. I've heard multiple versions.

What I currently understand you to be saying is this:

1. I think therefore I am. This provides a basis for claiming existence.
2. Existence requires origin.
3. From nothing, nothing comes: Origin requires a separate, existent cause
4. That separate, existent cause eventually is a deity of some sort with some properties

Are those your points? I don't want to discuss the wrong logical argument. Please correct if I am misunderstanding. If that is along the right lines, could you elaborate on 2, and provide the properties for 4.

Pat, you are right on the first 3 point. The result of those first 3 do not prove the existence of the Christian God, or any god for that matter. They do establish the necessity of an origin that has the ability to exist within itself and without dependency on any other thing.

 

#4 is an entirely separate discussion.

Unless you believe that a void (absence of any existence of any kind) can in some manner become something other than a void, there is no other option than to accept 1,2 and 3.

Caveat: I should have drawn attention to you definition of #3. My definition of #3 is that the word "origin" means something that exists apart from any other thing, with no dependencies (self existence).

 

So, to condense, I think that the following represents your case:

1. I exist
2. Existence requires creation.
3. Creation ultimately requires a self-existent creator. 

Does that accurately represent your case?

No.  

1. We exist.   

2. That we existence requires that something has always existed.   

3. Whatever has always existed has the power of self existence (no outside dependency for existence)

 The universe satisfies those criterion as it has always existed.

I agree that as a matter of reason that is possible, but also unlikely. Things like the entropy present issues with your supposition. I think we might both agree there has to be something in existence before the universe as we now know it.

Please ignore my note about entropy. I don't want to take us on a tangent.

We agree on the necessity that there be something with the ability of self existence? True?

There was no before the universe per my understanding of current cosmology.

I think the terms ability and self attribute personal attributes and that have yet to be shown. The argument as currently stated seems to be missing contingency.

If there was no "before" the universe, then the universe has to be able to exist apart from any other thing. If the universe is dependent on any other thing it cannot be the point of origin from which all else evolved. agree?

If there not being anything before the universe necessarily gives the universe the property of self-existence, then it seems that an external self-existent entity is not required. In effect disconfirmed by big bang cosmology.

[break]

Apologies [Bill], my previous post was rushed.

 

I think I get what you're trying to say. I think what you mean was that there must have been a "before" the universe began because the universe is not self-existent. But there does not seem to have been a "before" the universe began since time seems to be a property of the universe, not something that the universe is "in". And this is where we get into one of the big problem areas of the cosmological argument. It tries to draw inductive proofs in a realm that human induction has no business in - a realm outside of time and space. You can't really understand that. We can't even properly state the argument.

 

You can also almost always restate the argument to refute it, and draw absurd conclusions.

 

WLC will state it like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Deduction: The universe had a cause

But that can easily be re-stated:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a natural, temporal cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Deduction: The universe had a natural, temporal cause

This, obviously, is absurd. The problem is 2. The universe did not begin to exist. There was no time where the universe didn't exist. Now, sure, the universe has been in existence for 13.7 billion years. But that doesn't mean it began to exist in the same way that events that lead to the inductive proof began, because for all of them there was a time prior to their beginning. The t=0 point of the big bang is fundamentally different. It is mind boggling. It is hard to conceptualize. But that's what the data says.

 

Note: 1 also seems to be not true. Most things that begin to exist do not appear to have a cause as they are spontaneous creation of partical-antiparticle pairs. I've heard arguments against this stating that it's not "really" nothing that they come from. But that is a) a convenient definition of nothing and, b) not important, the lack of cause is the important part. What "causes" radioactive decay? We can show necessary pre-conditions for it. We can say when it will probably happen. But cause? That's a stretch.

Very busy. Will respond soon.

No worries [Bill], take your time. The race for knowledge is a marathon, not a sprint.

Despite the hypotheticals stated, what we know from reason remains that cause and effect rationale is alive and well. If Big Bang theory is correct, there most certainly was something in existence prior. I'm not trying to establish what existed at that time, but simply that something did always exist. Call that entity what you will, you can only accept its existence as a matter of reason. And you can only theorize what that entity is as a matter of faith. You may reject the God of Christianity, but you replace Him with faith in something else.

You do not seem to have provided a counter for my points. Instead you have made assertions that I have, in my opinion, provided contradictory arguments against. You claim that my position is contra-rational. I think I have demonstrated that it is not. You claim that it is a matter of faith, which I concede. I place my trust in evidence and what we can know from it, accepting the limitations of human knowledge rather than claiming as knowledge that which we can not have. It requires faith to believe in God, and a very different kind of faith than trusting evidence, deduction, and scientific analysis. A belief in God is not something I have ever heard a good defense of from evidence and rationality. And if you could, where then would be faith? Meaningless.

 

Maybe you could point out where if I am mistaken.

For clarification: When I state that I concede it is a matter of faith, "it" refers to belief in God.

Pat, my only point is that the "science" relied upon to replace faith in God with faith in "evidence" is really nothing more than conjecture. I've spent a lifetime working in the scientific realm. I find it infinitely more rational to trust in a Christian God than in the ever fleeting whims of the latest "science." I don't object to others having faith in atheism, except when they so often attack those on my side as ignorant and unreasonable. From my side I would make exactly the same criticisms of atheism. We won't agree on much, but atheism's track record in the past 100 years is pretty bloody. I don't want to be one of the victims of the self-enlightened in this century.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of rationality is in the technical argument. I am not seeing one be made that addresses the problems that I provided.

 

We are all ignorant and delusional. Accepting that about one's self is the beginning of a good approach to knowledge.

I believe you when you say that you do not recognize the argument being made. I don't think that is going to change.   

And Pat, I certainly do not find myself to be delusional. No doubt we are all ignorant of something, but some things are more important to be knowledgeable about than others. Knowledge is a fine thing, but wisdom is much more important. I know far too many well educated fools.   

I'm not sure we can progress far from here Pat. Enjoyed the conversation. Take care my friend.

For the sake of clarity, my point was that no additional argument was being made. If there is one in there, it would need to be re-stated. One was made, but countered, and the counter not dealt with. Of course, that's my perspective, I'd expect yours to differ.

 

I wish you the best [Bill]. Take care.