Cosmological Argument

[Venomous Pen]

The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God using the idea of a first cause, prime mover, the necessity for a beginning, etc. to show that there exist a cause which is, in itself, uncaused and transcendental.

My personal cosmological argument goes like this:

1. All timeslices, a specific moment in time which shows the absolute positions of all particles, have compositions which are adequately explained by previous causal force(s).

2. This is true of the first timeslice of the universe.

3. Therefore, the first timeslice's composition can be adequately by previous causal force(s).

What can we obtain from this argument about the nature of the first causal force(s)?

Well, Occam's Razor would seek to eliminate the amount of forces to simplest number that the evidence allows for, which would, in this case, be one (since science is largely silent on the notion of what caused the universe to begin expanding), so the most reasonable assumption would be that one causal force. The first causal force must be, naturally, uncaused itself (to avoid the infinite regression problem). It must also be transcendental, meaning it is not natural and thus not composed of space or time and not limited to space and time. The first causal force must also have causal power...obviously, and, apparently, quite a lot of it since it is responsible for the expansion and existence of space and time, which includes the sum of all matter and energy.

So, in summary, what we have a singular, transcendental, uncaused (eternal to boot), massively powerful causal force. Naturally, this sounds, arguably, like a god, but it may simply be a mathematical theorem or entity, devoid of any real intelligence or will. However, when fused in combination with the argument for fine-tuning, then this same causal force become a supremely intelligent, perceptive, personal being capable of interfering with, whether disrupting, reversing or nullifying laws of nature as its discretion. The fine-tuning argument will be elaborated on at a later date when time allows.

At least, however, the reasonable person can conclude, absent any evidence to the contrary of course, that materialism and naturalism have proven to be untenable.

Instead of writing some objections out, I'll just wait and respond to the ones (if there are any) that are made in this thread.

[snowdog]

Oh, first cause, and all that jazz. We did this in Philosophy class.

=D

I forget this every single time... wasn't one objection of this that one can't use knowledge based on experience to make conclusions when discussing things beyond anyone's experience?

... I apologise if that makes no sense. I'm rusty on this...

<3

[Venomous Pen]

Originally Posted by snowdog

I forget this every single time... wasn't one objection of this that one can't use knowledge based on experience to make conclusions when discussing things beyond anyone's experience?

... I apologise if that makes no sense. I'm rusty on this...

Well, I think I get what you're saying, but I just don't see how it applies to my argument.

[snowdog]

The cosmological argument argues that for everything that happens, there is a cause. So tracing it back, you come to the origins of the universe?
-please, tell me if I'm wrong at any point-
So one in favour of the cosmological argument would argue that there is a first cause - perhaps God, if you're religious, or some force, or power - that brought the universe into existence. And the objection is that one can't use knowledge based on their own experience to come to a conclusion when they have no experience of the matter at hand - i.e, they have no experience of the beginning of the universe, and therefore, no knowledge of it.

Gah, I hate this argument. I always get confused. xD

<3

[Venomous Pen]

Originally Posted by snowdog

The cosmological argument argues that for everything that happens, there is a cause. So tracing it back, you come to the origins of the universe?
-please, tell me if I'm wrong at any point-
So one in favour of the cosmological argument would argue that there is a first cause - perhaps God, if you're religious, or some force, or power - that brought the universe into existence. And the objection is that one can't use knowledge based on their own experience to come to a conclusion when they have no experience of the matter at hand - i.e, they have no experience of the beginning of the universe, and therefore, no knowledge of it.

Gah, I hate this argument. I always get confused. xD

<3

I've heard of this objection, though, of course, it's a weak one (nothing against you personally for bringing it up). If people took this objection seriously, then history would cease to be a discipline, since most of that took place long before any modern human's experience of it. This is also applicable to...well...science, too. While scientific experiments are indeed repeatable, most of the progress comes from published studies and papers of previous studies, from which new experiments are able to be conducted successfully and repeatedly.

Basically, if someone took this objection seriously, then we would know very little about the past, or even the present, i.e. I have no experience of Paris, France, and, therefore, no knowledge of it.

All humans, in a reasonable fashion, use both their sense and their reasoning abilities to make judgments about the world. Naturally, the cosmological argument is an exercise in deduction, induction and abduction (as are most judgments), and just because I have no first hand experience about the beginning of the universe doesn't mean I can't have any knowledge or good idea what it was all about if I use reason and evidence correctly. I hope that makes sense.

[Deus Ex]

Originally Posted by Venomous Pen

The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God using the idea of a first cause, prime mover, the necessity for a beginning, etc. to show that there exist a cause which is, in itself, uncaused and transcendental.

My personal cosmological argument goes like this:

1. All timeslices, a specific moment in time which shows the absolute positions of all particles, have compositions which can be adequately explained by previous causal force(s) acting.

2. This is true of the first timeslice of the universe.

3. Therefore, the first timeslice's composition can be adequately by previous causal force(s).

What can we obtain from this argument about the nature of the first causal force(s)?

Well, Occam's Razor would seek to eliminate the amount of forces to simplest number that the evidence allows for, which would, in this case, be one (since science is largely silent on the notion of what caused the universe to begin expanding), so the most reasonable assumption would be that one causal force. The first causal force must be, naturally, uncaused itself (to avoid the infinite regression problem). It must also be transcendental, meaning it is not natural and thus not composed of space or time and not limited to space and time. The first causal force must also have causal power...obviously, and, apparently, quite a lot of it since it is responsible for the expansion and existence of space and time, which includes the sum of all matter and energy.

So, in summary, what we have a singular, transcendental, uncaused (eternal to boot), massively powerful causal force. Naturally, this sounds, arguably, like a god, but it may simply be a mathematical theorem or entity, devoid of any real intelligence or will. However, when fused in combination with the argument for fine-tuning, then this same causal force become a supremely intelligent, perceptive, personal being capable of interfering with, whether disrupting, reversing or nullifying laws of nature as its discretion. The fine-tuning argument will be elaborated on at a later date when time allows.

At least, however, the reasonable person can conclude, absent any evidence to the contrary of course, that materialism and naturalism have proven to be untenable.

Instead of writing some objections out, I'll just wait and respond to the ones (if there are any) that are made in this thread.

Is anyone willing to critique this? I would be interested to hear people's opinions.

[Hollow Bastion]

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Is anyone willing to critique this? I would be interested to hear people's opinions.

You could contribute as well.



What of whether this unmoved mover involved itself in the world after it, well, "moved"? Would the unmoved mover be allowed to fall into the cycle of causality itself?

[Venomous Pen]

Originally Posted by Hollow Bastion

What of whether this unmoved mover involved itself in the world after it, well, "moved"? Would the unmoved mover be allowed to fall into the cycle of causality itself?

In my argument, the causal force is transcendent and eternal, so I believe it is immune to causality. As for the ability to move into the physical world, I can't rule that out on the basis of this argument alone (though I do believe the first causal force has indeed entered into the cycle of causality present in the universe).

[Deus Ex]

Originally Posted by Hollow Bastion

You could contribute as well.

I would do so, if I didn't agree with it already. This is not the first time I have heard it, either

[Morning Twilight]

The only thing I have with this is that it can only rule by what we can deduce. Meaning that someone will take it that the "cause" has only what we have stated. The problem with this is, 1) we could be wrong (although i do believe it is correct) 2) Someone will believe that the "cause" again only has the limits stated
3) Occam's Razor really has problems here since we are part of the universe, we are involved as part of the cause, and so is everything else around us that atleast Science has studdied, therefore everything that Science has studdied (which is the best way I can define what I'm saying) is evidence. And all should be applied. "the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities." To truly apply this, every entitiy has to be considered, including every god, living creature, or everything else considered an entity.

This is everything I can possibly see wrong with the writing of this document. The first two numbers were just to improve the document for the reader to understand specifics. The last one is the only thing I do have a problem with, though I personally agree.

[Venomous Pen]

Originally Posted by Morning Twilight

Meaning that someone will take it that the "cause" has only what we have stated.

Which is perfectly reasonable.

2) Someone will believe that the "cause" again only has the limits stated

That would be an unreasonable approach. While someone could say "Well, I only believe the cause has these properties," and still be reasonable, it would be unreasonable to make the assertion, "The cause is -only- like the limits stated," without evidence to back the assertion up.

3) Occam's Razor really has problems here since we are part of the universe, we are involved as part of the cause, and so is everything else around us that atleast Science has studdied, therefore everything that Science has studdied (which is the best way I can define what I'm saying) is evidence. And all should be applied. "the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities." To truly apply this, every entitiy has to be considered, including every god, living creature, or everything else considered an entity.

I think you misunderstand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor merely states that if one thing can get the job done, then it is unreasonable to postulate two doing it absent any other evidence. Your conclusion that every entity must be considered does not flow from Occam's Razor. For example, in this argument, it could very well be Zeus is the causal force, but you cannot, from this argument alone, say: "Zeus was the causal force in this argument," since this argument does not even attempt to show what the first causal force consisted of. My argument merely uses Occam's Razor to show that it is only reasonable to assume one causal force is at work, since no other evidence is being given to contradict this position. In terms of defining what that causal force is is not relevant to this argument, but this argument could be used as evidence, by means of a cumulative case for the existence of Zeus or leprechauns or God, to show the existence of some other entity which possess the characteristics this argument requires.

[square-enix]

It must also be transcendental, meaning it is not natural and thus not composed of space or time and not limited to space and time.

Interesting. I see now. This entity is not a 'timeslice' because you said so?
Also if this entity was the one who created space and time, what need would it have to be transcendental?
Unless you're saying it becomes subject to the laws of causality once it has created time and space.

So, in summary, what we have a singular, transcendental, uncaused (eternal to boot), massively powerful causal force.

So to sum up the summary:
Entity
Transcendental/Supernatural
Uncaused/Eternal
Massively powerful/Omnipotent
[And some time later it acquires/is]
Omniscient
A being
Perceptive
Interferes

Energy
Uncaused/Eternal

Who knew Occam's razor favored the argument with more complex assumptions? But then again, the conservation of energy isn't an assumption, so seven assumptions to none? Obviously more assumptions (complex assumptions to boot.) is the preferred of the two.

I would do so,

Then do so. Argue for it if you're in agreement.

if I didn't agree with it already. This is not the first time I have heard it, either

It's his own interpretation (or at the very least, claimed) I'm so glad you opt out of thinking for yourself.

I think you misunderstand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor merely states that if one thing can get the job done, then it is unreasonable to postulate two doing it absent any other evidence. Your conclusion that every entity must be considered does not flow from Occam's Razor.

If we're just talking about the cosmological argument, there's nothing there that prevents multiple uncaused causes.

[Venomous Pen]

Originally Posted by square-enix

Interesting. I see now. This entity is not a 'timeslice' because you said so?
Also if this entity was the one who created space and time, what need would it have to be transcendental?
Unless you're saying it becomes subject to the laws of causality once it has created time and space.

I see someone isn't paying very much attention.

The entity is not a timeslice because it is invoked to explain the composition of the -first- timeslice. If it were a timeslice itself, then its composition would have to explained, and we'd be right back where we started from. Its existence as a non-timeslice is assumed in the argument since it is being invoked to explain the first timeslice, since, naturally, the first timeslice requires causal explanation.

And by transcendental, I merely mean it transcends the limitation of space of time, such as requiring to be part of the universe or composed of matter. And it is exempt from this because, by it causing the composition of the -first- timeslice, it naturally preceeds the universe, which is characterized as the sum of all space and time. Naturally, if something preceeds and operates without space and time, it isn't part of it; it transcends/isn't composed of it.

So to sum up the summary:
Entity
Transcendental/Supernatural
Uncaused/Eternal
Massively powerful/Omnipotent
[And some time later it acquires/is]
Omniscient
A being
Perceptive
Interferes

Energy
Uncaused/Eternal

Who knew Occam's razor favored the argument with more complex assumptions? But then again, the conservation of energy isn't an assumption, so seven assumptions to none? Obviously more assumptions (complex assumptions to boot.) is the preferred of the two.

I had no idea energy was "uncaused/eternal." If energy exists, it's presumably still in space and time. There is no uncaused/eternal energy as far as I am aware. And if there is, it''s energy that is not understood by what scientists usually say when they say "energy."

And, as my argument allows, you could say some sort of proto-energy explains the composition of the first timeslice, but the energy requires exactly what I said previously. Transcendental, causal, uncaused and eternal and massively powerful.

If we're just talking about the cosmological argument, there's nothing there that prevents multiple uncaused causes.

I never said there is something that prevents multiple uncaused causes; I just said it is unreasonable postulate more if one can do the job just as well. Of course, if there is evidence for more than one cause, then feel free to postulate them as the evidence requires.

[Deus Ex]

It's his own interpretation (or at the very least, claimed) I'm so glad you opt out of thinking for yourself.

Where did I imply that I did not think for myself? Incidentally, why would you be glad that I had not?

[square-enix]

I see someone isn't paying very much attention.

The entity is not a timeslice because it is invoked to explain the composition of the -first- timeslice. If it were a timeslice itself, then its composition would have to explained, and we'd be right back where we started from. Its existence as a non-timeslice is assumed in the argument since it is being invoked to explain the first timeslice, since, naturally, the first timeslice requires causal explanation.

I understand your argument. The part where I typed "This entity is not a 'timeslice' because you said so?" will likely clear the matter up. I simply thought it necessary to point out that you altered the cosmological argument to say "everything else except" because you didn't feel like discussing the 'original'
What you did was fascinating to me because now the distinction between this argument is no different from Intelligent Design/Teleological/Creationism.
"This supernatural being is eternal [because I said so] so it is not subject to our laws because it is also all powerful. This all powerful being created everything"

And by transcendental, I merely mean it transcends the limitation of space of time, such as requiring to be part of the universe or composed of matter.

You already gave the definition, that's not what I was asking. I'll rephrase. Why are you proposing that the entity needs to be transcendental when it exists in a period that does not yet have time and space (because it has not yet created them)?
Which leads me to another question I meant to ask. If the entity is not part of our universe, is it part of another universe? In that second universe (if you agree with the theory of parallel universes) is there also another entity that must be separate from it's universe? And so on.

I had no idea energy was "uncaused/eternal."

Law of conservation of energy. That's what I'm basing my statement on. What of your assessment?

If energy exists, it's presumably still in space and time.

Would it be safe for me to assume that you meant to imply that something must be
independent from space and time to be eternal?

There is no uncaused/eternal energy as far as I am aware.

See Law of conservation of energy.

And if there is, it''s energy that is not understood by what scientists usually say when they say "energy."

Source, on what scientist usually say when they say "energy" please. I need reading material because according to you, I'm not paying very much attention.

And, as my argument allows, you could say some sort of proto-energy explains the composition of the first timeslice, but the energy requires exactly what I said previously. Transcendental, causal, uncaused and eternal and massively powerful.

When I put down energy, I meant "Big Bang" Now, why the Big Bang needs to meet your criteria, when I'm not arguing for energy to be the first mover, is still unknown to me. I put it down to show the comparison between the many assumptions you had for the entity, and the zero to one assumption for energy (depending on whether you agree with the Law of Conservation of energy) because your assessments are directly contrary to Occam's Razor.
Much simpler assumptions I think would be,

*Universal Laws always were

The fact that your argument creates an entity, that is uncaused, eternal, and has all sorts of lovely powers is far too numerous and complex to fit in accordance with Occam's Razor.

I never said there is something that prevents multiple uncaused causes;

Kindly point out where I put words in your mouth.

Of course, if there is evidence for more than one cause, then feel free to postulate them as the evidence requires.

Well, most Gods meet the items you mentioned:
Transcendental
Uncaused/Eternal
Massively powerful
Omniscient
A being
Perceptive
Interferes

so since they all have the same number of assumptions and same inane complexity, they're all the 'first' cause. (But again, they cause the first cause because you said so) Hence, multiple unmovable movers.

Where did I imply that I did not think for myself?

You said you wouldn't contribute, because you already agree. Which came off as "I can't contribute, but the argument sounds good. "
Edit:

Is anyone willing to critique this? I would be interested to hear people's opinions.

Also contributed. I've never seen this type of comment before. It comes off as lazy, and you want to basically, 'steal' the thoughts of others because you don't feel like thinking.
If I was interested, I would participate in the discussion, which is what I'm doing.

Incidentally, why would you be glad that I had not?

If you were also in the discussion, I might have to answer two different sets of post. More work :(