List of God arguments to be presented: 1 Argument from Religious experience (codetermenate)
2 Argument from Transcendental signifiers
3 The Cosmological argument(You are here)
4 The Fine tuning argument
5 Hartshorne's Modal argument
The Argument
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.[1]
There are many versions of the cosmological argument, this is the modal cosmological argument. One of the best known versions is the Kalam cosmological arument is the version made famous by William Lane Craig. Craig takes that argument from Arab philosophers in the middle ages.The Modal version differs in that Kalam rests upon the universe having a beginning The Modal argument doesn't make that assumption:
What distinguishes the modal cosmological argument from the kalam cosmological argument is that it is consistent with the idea that the universe has an infinite past. The kalam cosmological argument rests on the controversial claim that the universe has a beginning in time. The argument from contingency, in contrast, is consistent with the universe having existed from eternity.[2]One thing skeptocal critics have often pulled on me is to deny that contingencies require necessities. They have often challenged me to prove this. My Major means of proof is to show that major sources on philosophy affirm this idea.First let's define necessity and contingency.
Something is “necessary” if it could not possibly have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are often thought to be necessary. It is plausible to say that mathematical truths such as two and two making four hold irrespective of the way that the world is. Even if the world were radically different, it seems, two and two would still make four. God, too, is often thought to be a necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.There is a causal dimension to the relationship. Contingencies deend upo necessities for their existence.
Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist. Most things seem to exist contingently. All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all.[3]
"A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. ... Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being."[4] This makes sense from the standpoint of cause and effect. All naturalistic things have causes.. Thus everything nature produces is caused and thus is contingent.Since nature is contingent there must be a necessity that produces nature.
A major argument skeptics ask me is why does the cause have to be God? It could be some impersonal things. That doesn;t make sense because they are asserting another naturalistic thing which would be contingent so it doesn't solve the problem at all. The ultimate necessity must be eternal since it can't be caused (then it would be contingent). We can't get something from nothing. It must be eternal. It must be capable of producing all the contingencies. Thus God fits this description better than anything else we know.
Notes and Sources
[1]My argument is a great deal like Samuel Calrke's argumemt.
Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) was the most influential British metaphysician and theologian in the generation between Locke and Berkeley, and only Shaftesbury rivals him in ethics. In all three areas he was very critical of Hobbes, Spinoza, and Toland. Deeply influenced by Newton, Clarke was critical of Descartes’ metaphysics of space and body because of the experimental evidence for Newtonianian doctrines of space, the vacuum, atoms, and attraction and because he believed Descartes’ identifying body with extension and removing final causes from nature had furthered irreligion and had naturally developed into Spinozism.
Stanford Encyclopidia of Philosphy (Apr 5, 2003;substantive revision Wed Aug 22, 2018)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/clarke/
Clarke’s “Argument from Contingency”:
1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.[2] Tim Holt, "Philoso[hy of Reliogion," www.philosophyofreligion.info website. URL:https://www.philosophyofreligion.uk/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/
2. Not every being can be contingent.
3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.
5. Therefore, God exists.
[3] Ibid.
[4]B Reichenbach, "Cosmological Argument," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,2004 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
21 comments:
The argument is based on assuming the universe cannot appear spontaneously.
If we assume the universe cannot appear spontaneously, then we can say "Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently." But if not, then the argument fails.
This is the point where you attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Pix
The argument is based on assuming the universe cannot appear spontaneously.
Right! nothing ever pops into existence out of nothing. Not even subatomic particles.
If we assume the universe cannot appear spontaneously, then we can say "Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently." But if not, then the argument fails.
those terms say what they are, Necessities have to exist, contingencies are merely contingent upon necessities. Contingent things don't have to exist and their existence depends upon necessary things.
This is the point where you attempt to shift the burden of proof.
wrong You The argument is based on assuming the universe cannot appear spontaneously.
If we assume the universe cannot appear spontaneously, then we can say "Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently." But if not, then the argument fails.
This is the point where you attempt to shift the burden of proof. missed on two counts.
(1)No popping out of nothing so yiour argument is just wrong, *(2)contingencies must have necessities so it could not be,
Joe: Right! nothing ever pops into existence out of nothing. Not even subatomic particles.
The problem is that we have no actual experience of universes coming into existence. It is quite a reach to suppose they cannot do so spontaneously.
And virtual particles do just pop into existence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
Joe: those terms say what they are, Necessities have to exist, contingencies are merely contingent upon necessities. Contingent things don't have to exist and their existence depends upon necessary things.
So maybe the multiverse is necessary, and spawned the universe.
Pix
How come Metacrock never answers any emails?
nonymous said...
How come Metacrock never answers any emails?
where are you sending them? try Metacrock@gmail.com
Anonymous said...
Joe: Right! nothing ever pops into existence out of nothing. Not even subatomic particles.
The problem is that we have no actual experience of universes coming into existence. It is quite a reach to suppose they cannot do so spontaneously.
Hardly. There are no examples of that it is counter to all we know about nature. You can't assume it just because you need it to answer a God argumemt
And virtual particles do just pop into existence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
Joe: those terms say what they are, Necessities have to exist, contingencies are merely contingent upon necessities. Contingent things don't have to exist and their existence depends upon necessary things.
So maybe the multiverse is necessary, and spawned the universe.
And virtual particles do just pop into existence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
No they don't. The come from other particles. Not from nothing, Evidence:
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.
But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles."
Gordon Kane, “Are Virtual Particles Really Constantly Popping In and Out of existence? Or Are They Merely a Mathematical Bookkeeping Device For Quantum Mechanics?” Scientific American, (Oct. 9, 2006) on line version URL: http://www.scientific american.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ accessed 10/12/15
read the auricle U wrote on this point: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2018/03/no-proof-virtual-particles-come-from.html
Joe: those terms say what they are, Necessities have to exist, contingencies are merely contingent upon necessities. Contingent things don't have to exist and their existence depends upon necessary things.
So maybe the multiverse is necessary, and spawned the universe.
A universe is a collection of things. those thing being naturalistic are contingent, so the collection would be contingent too.
another one I wrote on "quantum particles do not prove universe from nothing,"
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/03/quantum-particles-do-not-prove-universe.html
Joe: Hardly. There are no examples of that it is counter to all we know about nature. You can't assume it just because you need it to answer a God argumemt
So then your argument comes down to:
There are no things within the universe that spontaneously appeared
Therefore the universe itself cannot have sponaneously appeared
Therefore it must have been created.
All the rest of your post is window-dressing.
Joe: A universe is a collection of things. those thing being naturalistic are contingent, so the collection would be contingent too.
By multiverse I just mean non-intelligent thing that is necessary and can produce a universe.
In this scenario, the universe is continguent on the multiverse, and the multiverse is necessary.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Hardly. There are no examples of that it is counter to all we know about nature. You can't assume it just because you need it to answer a God argumemt
So then your argument comes down to:
There are no things within the universe that spontaneously appeared
Therefore the universe itself cannot have sponaneously appeared
Therefore it must have been created.
It must have been cause either by a series of things which were ultimately caused by eternally existing cause or caused directly by that cause.
All the rest of your post is window-dressing.
It's answering your post
Joe: A universe is a collection of things. those thing being naturalistic are contingent, so the collection would be contingent too.
By multiverse I just mean non-intelligent thing that is necessary and can produce a universe.
Most people use multiverse to mean several parallel universes. show me a non-intelligent thing that is necessary?
In this scenario, the universe is contingent on the multiverse, and the multiverse is necessary.
We have established that all naturalistic things are contingent, Because all naturalistic things have causes. you can't just assert a necessary because you need one for the argumemt. You no example of one.
Joe says:
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
[b] How do we know? This assumes that the cosmos isn't eternal. How do we know there isn't just an infinite regression?
Is it simply because we cannot apprehend that possibility? The Big Bang is the beginning of the expansion of our universe. We cannot say what was before that.[/B]
Joe: It must have been cause either by a series of things which were ultimately caused by eternally existing cause or caused directly by that cause.
Or it happened spontaneously. The simple fact is we do not know enough about universe formation to rule that out.
Joe: Most people use multiverse to mean several parallel universes. show me a non-intelligent thing that is necessary?
Sure, the thing that spawned the universe.
Before you object, think about whether your objection also applies to your hypothesis.
Joe: We have established that all naturalistic things are contingent, Because all naturalistic things have causes. you can't just assert a necessary because you need one for the argumemt. You no example of one.
Where have you established that it is explicitly naturalistic things that are contingent, rather than things inside this universe?
And if you you can assert a necessary because you need one for your argument then I can do so too.
Pix
Some possible scenarios:
1. There is a necessary, intelligent thing that created this universe at the Big Bang
2. There is a necessary, non-intelligent thing that spawned this universe at the Big Bang
3. The universe itself is necessary and eternal; it pre-existed the Big Bang, and the Big Bang was a point of change not creation
4. The universe appeared spontaneously
5. Something else even more bizarre
None of these can be ruled out - we just do not know enough about how universes form.
Pix
Cuttlebones said...
Joe says:
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
[b] How do we know? This assumes that the cosmos isn't eternal. How do we know there isn't just an infinite regression?
Is it simply because we cannot apprehend that possibility? The Big Bang is the beginning of the expansion of our universe. We cannot say what was before that.[/B]
when I google the "definition of contingent" it says "dependent on or conditioned by something else." The word itself tells us this is dependent upon something else. Because contingent things require necessities there can't be a world of only contingencies.
Anonymous said...
Joe: It must have been cause either by a series of things which were ultimately caused by eternally existing cause or caused directly by that cause.
Or it happened spontaneously. The simple fact is we do not know enough about universe formation to rule that out.
Nope that never never never happens. No one example in the history of the world. You can't make that change just to beat a God argumemt.
Joe: Most people use multiverse to mean several parallel universes. show me a non-intelligent thing that is necessary?
Sure, the thing that spawned the universe.
since that's what we are arguing about you beg the question,
Before you object, think about whether your objection also applies to your hypothesis.
It's burden to show that.
Joe: We have established that all naturalistic things are contingent, Because all naturalistic things have causes. you can't just assert a necessary because you need one for the argumemt. You no example of one.
Where have you established that it is explicitly naturalistic things that are contingent, rather than things inside this universe?
U said it again above natural things have cause.by definition that makes them contingent, show me a natural thing that doesn't have a cause.
And if you you can assert a necessary because you need one for your argument then I can do so too.
Mine is based upon the meaning of the terms, knowledge of philosophy, and extremely shrewd observation of life.
12:10 AM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Some possible scenarios:
1. There is a necessary, intelligent thing that created this universe at the Big Bang
2. There is a necessary, non-intelligent thing that spawned this universe at the Big Bang
how do you know it's not intelligent, how could a non intelligent thing set up such a complex finely tuned world?
3. The universe itself is necessary and eternal; it pre-existed the Big Bang, and the Big Bang was a point of change not creation
the big bang proves it's not eternal. There was an astronomical theory like that called steady state it was specially rejected in favor of the big bang,
4. The universe appeared spontaneously
I've already shot that one down
5. Something else even more bizarre
wow he's really getting desperate. This is just like saying I'll take anything but God.
None of these can be ruled out - we just do not know enough about how universes form.
here we see why God argumemt mean nothing to atheist because they don't care what is true. I just eliminated all of them but God, but it wot matter to him. He asserts they are all possible even those that have no example no support even the steady state theory was trashed by science years ago.He would accept the big band and steady state blithely unware of the contradiction. atheists don't care what's true.
Joe: Nope that never never never happens. No one example in the history of the world. You can't make that change just to beat a God argumemt.
There is also no example of God creating a universe in the history of the world. Looks like our two hypothesis are on level pegging so far.
Joe: since that's what we are arguing about you beg the question,
So exactly like your God argument, where you assume God exists. Again, the two hypothesis are on level pegging.
Joe: It's burden to show that.
So exactly like your God argument, where you have the burden to show God exists. Again, the two hypothesis are on level pegging.
Joe: U said it again above natural things have cause.by definition that makes them contingent, show me a natural thing that doesn't have a cause.
We only have a limited number of natural things to look at - things inside the universe. How can we extrapolate that to the universe itself or to the thing that spawned the universe?
Your term "natural things" is just a way of defining God into existence. You declare all "natural things" are necessary, but then suppose the subject of your pet hypothesis is excluded because you need him to be excluded for your pet hypothesis.
If we suppose a necessary entity is required, then either it is natural, and your claim about natural things is wrong, or the necessary entity is unnatural. I guess it depends now you are defining natural. Let's define it to exclude the necessary universe! Problem solved.
Joe: Mine is based upon the meaning of the terms, knowledge of philosophy, and extremely shrewd observation of life.
Hilarious! What exactly has your extremely shrewd observation of life added to your argument here?
Joe: how do you know it's not intelligent, how could a non intelligent thing set up such a complex finely tuned world?
I do not know that; I am proposing it as a possibility. That is why I said "Some possible scenarios". The only honest position here is "we do not know".
With regards to fine-tuning, the multiverse may be an answer - but again, we do not really know.
If the universe is so finely tuned, why is life so rare in the solar system? Why is so much of the universe - more than 99.9999999% - deadly to human life?
Joe: the big bang proves it's not eternal. There was an astronomical theory like that called steady state it was specially rejected in favor of the big bang,
No it does not. It proves some very rapid expansion occurred, and the universe as we know it started then, but the universe may have already existed. We do not know.
Joe: I've already shot that one down
Well, you have asserted it is wrong...
Joe: wow he's really getting desperate. This is just like saying I'll take anything but God.
It is acknowledging that we do not know enough to even be confident we know all the options.
Joe: here we see why God argumemt mean nothing to atheist because they don't care what is true. I just eliminated all of them but God, but it wot matter to him.
Here we see Christian apologetics at its finest. We know what answer we want, so we reject all the others as impossible - even if the same applies to our pet theory - and declare our pet theory is the winner!
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Nope that never never never happens. No one example in the history of the world. You can't make that change just to beat a God argumemt.
There is also no example of God creating a universe in the history of the world. Looks like our two hypothesis are on level pegging so far.
That is begging the question because there may be. That is what we are arguing about, You can't answer the question by asserting something with no proof.
Joe: since that's what we are arguing about you beg the question,
So exactly like your God argument, where you assume God exists. Again, the two hypothesis are on level pegging.
Come on man it's a God ARGUMEM$NT! I am making an argument! I must assert what I argue for but I offer reasons to believe it. I did not use as one of those reasons something of which there are no examples.
Joe: It's your burden to show that.
So exactly like your God argument, where you have the burden to show God exists. Again, the two hypothesis are on level pegging.
You offered that as a disproof of my argument, my argumemt is not based upon no examples its based up scientific data for cosmology. You completely ignore the rationale for the argue as I said you woud Atheists cannot deal with the logic of God arguments
Joe: said it again above natural things have cause.by definition that makes them contingent, show me a natural thing that doesn't have a cause.
We only have a limited number of natural things to look at - things inside the universe. How can we extrapolate that to the universe itself or to the thing that spawned the universe?
Science does extrapolate. They assume the same physical laws apply throughout the universe. Your argument is a "maybe." You can't beat a logical argumemt with maybe.
Your term "natural things" is just a way of defining God into existence. You declare all "natural things" are necessary, but then suppose the subject of your pet hypothesis is excluded because you need him to be excluded for your pet hypothesis.
Sorry that is ignorant. Atheists argue for naturalistic things using that term. Anytime you reject the concept of Supernatural you by default argue for the natural. Atheists use that term all the time.
If we suppose a necessary entity is required, then either it is natural, and your claim about natural things is wrong, or the necessary entity is unnatural. I guess it depends now you are defining natural. Let's define it to exclude the necessary universe! Problem solved.
The proper term is supernatural not unnatural. Parents not loving heir children's is unnatural. God is supernatural. Unnatural means a perversion supernatural means above nature. God created nature so he must be above and involved in it.
Joe: Mine is based upon the meaning of the terms, knowledge of philosophy, and extremely shrewd observation of life.
Hilarious! What exactly has your extremely shrewd observation of life added to your argument here?
It tells me how deal with smart ass Englishmen.;-)
Joe: how do you know it's not intelligent, how could a non intelligent thing set up such a complex finely tuned world?
I do not know that; I am proposing it as a possibility. That is why I said "Some possible scenarios". The only honest position here is "we do not know".
May be a possibility but seems highly unlikely
With regards to fine-tuning, the multiverse may be an answer - but again, we do not really know.
I posted my fine tuning argumemt today with answers to multiverse. so check it out.
If the universe is so finely tuned, why is life so rare in the solar system? Why is so much of the universe - more than 99.9999999% - deadly to human life?
It takes fine tuning to produce life. That's why its rare. That is like asking If you are so smart howcome you have a PhD?
Joe: the big bang proves it's not eternal. There was an astronomical theory like that called steady state it was specially rejected in favor of the big bang,
No it does not. It proves some very rapid expansion occurred, and the universe as we know it started then, but the universe may have already existed. We do not know.
There's a lot now agmas the idea of eternal universe. That is by science not creationists. The article was by an atheist apologist. I'll try find it.
Joe: I've already shot that one down
Well, you have asserted it is wrong...
Joe: wow he's really getting desperate. This is just like saying I'll take anything but God.
It is acknowledging that we do not know enough to even be confident we know all the options.
True but not all options are equally likely. We don't know but you can't beat the argument just by saying maybe.
Joe: here we see why God argumemt mean nothing to atheist because they don't care what is true. I just eliminated all of them but God, but it wot matter to him.
Here we see Christian apologetics at its finest. We know what answer we want, so we reject all the others as impossible - even if the same applies to our pet theory - and declare our pet theory is the winner!
I apologize for you don't care about truth . I just got carried away with rhetoric. WE all have our biases, we all seek first the evidence we want to believe. Atheists do that, Christians do that. everyone does. You still can't assert the mere possibility with no evidence against a developed argumemt that contains some kind of probability.
look at the argumemt again? Look at each premise, he and no real against ageism any of them,
1. Something exists.
no challenge
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
no challenge
no challenge
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
ditto
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
ditto
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
Ibid
6. Therefore God exists.
Ibid
the argument is won. My objective has been reached he either had to admit there is evidence or keep saying there isn't when its ridiculous to say that;
I admit it's not proven but there is evidence. That's what made me mad they wont stop this assigning idea that there's no evidence.
The only argumemt he offers against this argument is that there are theories that assert an impersonal orogen. That's fine but they may not be as likely as the idea of an intelligent force behind the universe.
Post a Comment