Cosmological Argument Defense
A Christian, Mr. Cliff Soon presents his defense of the Cosmological Argument. At the end of Mr. Soon's paper, I have a link to my rebuttal.
Paul Jacobsen writes:
The reason I bring the subject of falsifiability up is because, in my view, some of Moreland's arguments are unfalsifiable. I cannot prove he is wrong, because the unfalsifiable can never be proved false. But, if his arguments do depend on unfalsifiable theories, then they must be assumed false.
|
Right here one wonders, Are you going to present an falsifiable alternative? I mention this because evolutionists constantly claim that it is a requirement if one wants to disprove evolution. A ridiculous claim, of course (by such reasoning they would have to reject quantum physics), but any full-fledged evolutionist should get used to using such "arguments." So I skipped ahead.
... it is really of little value in finding causes of universes.
Here you simply dismiss this profoundly important issue. As I go back and read further, I think we will discover why: you have no plausible alternative, as I will argue. But I think starting from your summary will be instructive.
... it is really of little value in finding causes of universes.
Here you simply dismiss this profoundly important issue. As I go back and read further, I think we will discover why: you have no plausible alternative, as I will argue. But I think starting from your summary will be instructive.
I have noted that something must have not needed a cause, be it God or the universe or something else unknown. I can agree that saying the universe didn't need a cause seems like an unsatisfying answer. Everything seems to need a cause. But once it is realized that something didn’t need a cause, it might as well be the universe ...
|
This is an amazing leap of faith - that the universe, an astoundingly complex dance of fine-tuned physical laws containing a planet which statistically shouldn't exist (i.e. hospitable to life) in turn containing organisms, another statistical and indeed (naturalistically speaking) physical impossibility, all exhibiting signs of meticulous design, the whole requiring the creation of energy and matter on a ... uh ... "cosmic" scale - came from nothing, caused by nothing. Indeed it is an abandonment of logic to say this view is preferable to the theistic one.
I don't have that much faith. No wonder secular humanists designated themselves a "religious" group.
I don't have that much faith. No wonder secular humanists designated themselves a "religious" group.
The universe's "beginning" to exist is a unique event in that there is no time for which the universe did not exist.
|
This definition doesn't even make sense. Uniqueness is not based length of existence.
So the requirement of having a cause cannot be demonstrated.
This is a non sequitur. Uniqueness does not imply this at all. Your birth was a unique event, wasn't it? Yet, like any other material event, we know it did require a cause.
So the requirement of having a cause cannot be demonstrated.
This is a non sequitur. Uniqueness does not imply this at all. Your birth was a unique event, wasn't it? Yet, like any other material event, we know it did require a cause.
If the universe really did need a cause, then it has not been adequately explained why God did not need a cause.
|
You were correct in saying you were "out of [your] league," Relative to Craig, most of us are. The above statement demonstrates it perfectly. The fact that God's being uncaused has "not been adequately explained" does not change the fact that the universe needed a cause. And we also have a hard time imagining what it means to be outside of time, and therefore not being subject to causality. But, again, if you demand a complete understanding of something before you could believe it, then you would have to reject quantum physics. Otherwise you would be using a double standard, and the reasons for doing so would then come under scrutiny.
Saying God is a "Necessary Being," or "He just necessarily didn't need a cause," is no better answer than saying the universe just necessarily didn't need a cause.
|
But it is a better answer. It has greater explanatory power and scope than the empty alternative you offered above. Why? Because, logically, we know that the universe required a cause. There is a confusion here that tries to equate the reasonableness of God's uncaused nature with the universe being uncaused. But this is a serious error. The universe is a material, temporal construct for which cause and effect point to the need for a cause. God, however, is by our logic and his own revelation, nonmaterial and timeless. In addition, God has revealed himself to us in many ways as someone who has the ability to create this universe, whereas the alternative is some unknown, undescribed, unexplained something or other. These posits are not equal. This error manifests again:
Moreland says that things like universes can't come from nothing. But, apparently God can make things come from nothing. So how can God violate the rule that something can't come from nothing?
|
Moreland is right, isn't he? Universes don't come from nothing. And if God exists as I believe, he can make things come from nothing (except from himself and his power). The rule is misstated. It should read: Naturalistically, something can't come from nothing.
There's no rule that says God can't create ex nihilo. And what is a rule? It is simply a description of what we observe as to how the natural world operates, sans outside intervention. A dropped ball hits falls to the ground - unless you catch it.
There's no rule that says God can't create ex nihilo. And what is a rule? It is simply a description of what we observe as to how the natural world operates, sans outside intervention. A dropped ball hits falls to the ground - unless you catch it.
As time itself began with the Big Bang, even the meaning of the word "eternal" is not obvious.
|
Why not? Eternal means outside of time.
So even though the universe had a beginning, whether it is appropriate to call the universe "eternal" is debatable.
|
Since the universe had a beginning, it is not eternal.
the existence of a "beyond-time" realm is pure speculation.
No, it's logic and physics. Since our time had a beginning, its origins are outside of our time - "beyond time."
the existence of a "beyond-time" realm is pure speculation.
No, it's logic and physics. Since our time had a beginning, its origins are outside of our time - "beyond time."
If there is a beyond-time realm, what it is like is also pure speculation. Such a realm has literally no time, no space, no matter and no energy. And none of our known physical laws apply.
If there is a beyond-time realm, anything there (God or otherwise) would have trouble "causing" the universe as causation implies time and order Moreland's arguments hinge on his beyond-time realm operating roughly like our realm, which seems to be a false supposition - even Moreland had to redefine words to get them to fit. |
Now, which is it? Is it pure speculation, or is it as you describe - no space, no matter, no energy, etc.? Your claim that God would have trouble etc. is, in your words, "pure speculation." Are you ready yet to discard quantum physics?
Moreland's arguments also hinge on unfalsifiable assertions making them of dubious value
You mean like your assertions above? You mean like evolution? I'll have to go back further to see what you're talking about here.
Moreland's arguments also hinge on unfalsifiable assertions making them of dubious value
You mean like your assertions above? You mean like evolution? I'll have to go back further to see what you're talking about here.
If the Cosmological Argument has to be rescued by appeals to the unknown, then its entire purpose--which is to supposedly show that science proves the existence of God--becomes moot.
|
But the origin of the universe - the point of the Cosmological Argument - is not unknown. It's God. It is the alternative which appeals to the unknown - and you are comfortable with that! The unknowns you refer to are regarding God's eternal state; however, he has revealed himself in many ways. Again, do you reject quantum physics? No, because you admit
I admitted earlier that my knowledge of quantum mechanics is pretty much limited to how to spell it. So, I probably have no business trying to define whether or not it is possible for something “prior” to the Big Bang to be able to “cause” the Big Bang. Additionally, as we humans are inherently time- limited, I'm not sure we can even really understand what a "timeless and immutable" state would be like.
|
Exactly. And our finite comprehension cannot be an excuse for ignoring the things we can comprehend, such as the universe's need for a powerful, intelligent cause.
At the very least, I believe I have shown that you have directed your arguments towards your predetermined conclusion of God's nonexistence, and not that the argument is flawed. I can only conclude that you have failed in your critique.
P.S.
To recap: the existence of a powerful, personal God is a logical deduction resulting from our understanding of the universe. The other details of his eternal state, etc. or our incomprehension thereof are irrelevant to this deduction. The alternative is devoid of any explanatory value whatsoever.
Doubtless the immediate retort is that we haven't explained God's origins and so on. But this takes the question further than the origin of the universe. In other words, Craig had no need to go into issues of timelessness and so on - the deduction of God's existence stands on its own.
Cliff Soon
At the very least, I believe I have shown that you have directed your arguments towards your predetermined conclusion of God's nonexistence, and not that the argument is flawed. I can only conclude that you have failed in your critique.
P.S.
To recap: the existence of a powerful, personal God is a logical deduction resulting from our understanding of the universe. The other details of his eternal state, etc. or our incomprehension thereof are irrelevant to this deduction. The alternative is devoid of any explanatory value whatsoever.
Doubtless the immediate retort is that we haven't explained God's origins and so on. But this takes the question further than the origin of the universe. In other words, Craig had no need to go into issues of timelessness and so on - the deduction of God's existence stands on its own.
Cliff Soon