BIC: This thread is
primarily to debate and discuss the motion "Does God Exist?" so
feel free to share your views. We can simply debate the
merits of theism or atheism first and then later debate
on why I think if there is a God that it is the one
revealed in the Bible. I suggest to discuss Biblical Inerrancy
in the other thread I started on the Word of God. While related
they are quite distinct issues. Yes, I am familiar with the
Christian apologists you mentioned, though I have read more by
Craig than the others. Plantinga does not really write for the
layman in my view. Lets start with the kalam cosmological argument
then, defended most robustly by William Lane
Craig.
WD: "According to
Stephen Hawking in his book "The Nature of Space and Time", the
universe was not eternal. During the Big Bang 15 billion years ago,
physical time and matter began to exist. Thus, the universe began
to exist during the Big Bang. Where did it come from? There must
have been an uncaused, changeless and timeless being who caused the
Big Bang. Premise 1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Premise
2 - The universe began to exist, Premise 3 - The universe has a
cause." - William Lane Craig's opening statement with his debate
with Christopher Hitchens (2009)
My reponse - Consider
the question "What created time?" Causality requires an application
of time. asking what created time before time existed is a self
contradictory statement. in essence, it's like asking "What's North
of the North Pole?" Hence, to speak of causality before time
existed is a self refuting concept. You cannot have creation in the
absence of time. Secondly, it is not necessary for the universe to
have a cause. The assertion presented is that since everytime thing
that begins to exist in the universe has a cause, therefore the
universe has a cause. This is a fallacy of composition (assuming
what is true of a part is necessarily true of a whole). Thirdly,
let us assume, just to make things more interesting, that the
premises of the Cosmological Argument are correct. We are now left
with a timeless, spaceless, immaterial creator. At this point, we
have no idea what that could be. it could be the square root of 7,
or the concept of an apple. How does one jump from non physical
causation, as stated in the premises to
God?
BIC: If I am not
wrong, it is agreed that time, space and matter (catch all phrase
for the universe) had a beginning. Secular folks call it "The Big
Bang" that supposedly happened billions of years ago. The
Bible calls it "The Beginning" that took place about 6000 years
ago. But the recent scientific conclusion that the universe
has a beginning merely confirms what the Bible has been saying for
millennia.
Causality simply
requires that effects have causes. If time is an effect, then its
cause must be outside of time. There is NOTHING contradictory or
self-refuting about that at all. I am not saying that there
was a time before time began. The Bible does not begin this way
either. BTW, that fits very well with the Biblical view of God, who
stands outside of time (dwells in eternity) and created time. Our
finite brain hurts to think of what eternity is like because we are
space bound and time bound.
You argue that it is a
fallacy of composition to say that the universe must have a cause.
You have failed to understand the Kalam argument. It says that
everything that has a beginning must have a cause. The universe has
a beginning, therefore it must have a cause. There is no fallacy
here at all, not even one of composition. It is true that the Kalam
argument only tells us just so much about what the cause must be,
but not much more. However, at this point we have already one less
atheist in the world. We simply need to move on and see if there is
anything else that might reveal more of what this cause is like.
But I am sure you appreciate the point that this timeless,
spaceless, immaterial cause fits very well with the Biblical
God.
WD: Time is not an effect; time is a pre-requisite
for cause and effect. Causality is necessarily temporal, which
means it involves an a priori "before" and "after". The concept of
before and after is absurd, not to mention self contradictory in
the absence of time. Kalam works by an appeal to our cognitive
faculties. We observe that "in this universe", everything that
begins to exist has a cause. It is then said that therefore, the
universe has a cause. But how are we to ascertain if causality
exists "outside the universe" if all we've got are occurences of
causality "in the universe"? This is the fallacy of
composition which I'm referring to. I would also like to add
that Kalam does not compel people from atheism, because of the
plethora of "creators". One could just as well believe that a blue
potato was the uncaused, changless and timeless creator without
necessarily believing that said blue potato is a supernatural
diety.
BIC:
Even Hawkings concede the point of singularity, that
time has a beginning. Again Kalam states that what began to exist
must have a cause. There is again no logical flaw in this premise.
Neither is there one in the case of the finite universe requiring a
cause. What has been established is that the universe did not
always exist. Logic then demands that something must have caused it
to exist, even if it is timeless and outside of this universe, an
idea that you are apparently not comfortable with. Whether we can
ascertain anything outside our universe is irrelevant to the
argument about causation. You would be confusing the proof with the
logic of the argument.
Even, if for the sake
of argument, you wish to argue that the cause of the universe is
many creators, we can invoke Occam's Razor and dispense with the
many when all we need is just ONE being or entity capable of
creating the universe. Is God the same as a blue potato? What
properties do you wish to endow your blue potato with? How you know
it is blue? Blue is a property of matter, and thus fails the
immaterial attribute you mentioned earlier. Again remember,
whatever this cause is, it must at least be timeless, immaterial,
all powerful (to be able to bring the universe to existence), and
personal (to be able to exercise the choice to create the
universe).
WD: Hawkings has
conceded that time has begun to exist, no
doubt. There are 3 possibilities if the universe has a beginning in
time. Either time begins with the universe, time began for a finite
time before the universe, or time existed for an infinite period
before the universe. Kalam rejects the last 2 possiblities so we'll
just go with the first one. If the act of God creating the universe
coincided with time in the beginning of the universe, then that act
must have began to exist. This means the act must have had a cause
(God). The cause (God) must have also began to exist, and so an
infinite regress threatens.
Suppose, then, that
God starts time before the universe. Perhaps he has a countdown:
"5, 4, 3, 2, 1... kaboom!" In this case, the beginning of time
would be an event in the mind of God - the start of the countdown.
But here again, if God's act of starting the countdown is the
beginning of time, that act begins to exist, and the temporal
cosmological argument requires that that act also have a cause.
Once again the infinite regress abyss yawns. Furthermore, as the
British philosopher Le Poidevin pointed out, the 3rd premise of
Kalam will be false if time was eternal or if time existed as a
close loop with each moment preceding and following each
moment.
Kalam claims that the
cause of the universe is outside "the universe" Hence, it is of
upmost importance that we verify how causality works outside of the
universe. How then, can it be said that the universe MUST be caused
if one does not know if causality even exists outside of the
universe! The assumption of Kalam is that since what we observe in
this universe follows the line of cause and effect, therefore the
universe must also follow the principle of cause and effect. Which
is like I pointed out, a fallacy of composition.
Occams Razor is a very
interesting concept. I'm glad you brought that up. You see, Occams
Razor does nothing to demonstrate what is true, it only
demonstrates what is simple. Furthermore, if Occams Razor were to
be employed, would the American physicist Lawrence Krauss be
correct in asserting that the universe began out of virutal
particles (a view quite a number of physicists hold - Alan Guth,
Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson). Blue is immaterial, blue is a
concept. Blue is simply something affected by photon diffraction on
a line spectrum. Photons themselves have no rest mass; so cannot be
considered material.
BIC: If you ask me, I
think it is pointless to argue what was prior to "In the
beginning God...". It's just academic. But we all agree that there
was a beginning. The clock started ticking. If it started then
something must have caused it to start. Now, we already said that
whatever created the universe must be timeless, so why do you now
suggest that it is not and thus requires a cause? We can either go
infinite regress which explains nothing or we start with a
necessary being God. There is nothing illogical about an uncaused
cause.
Let's again not
confuse the proof with the logic of the argument. Like it or not,
there is no way we can transcend our confines to observe anything
outside the universe. This is our limitation. But this does not in
anyway proves that there is no cause that is outside of the
universe. Cause and effect is a universal law, so it is perfectly
logical and reasonable to apply it to the universe. Remember, your
issue is more of how to verify the cause, not that there is no
cause. Agnosticism about the cause is not the same as denial of the
cause.
Occam's Razor is a
method of reasoning, not a proof of anything. It is invoked to
remove UNNECESSARY entities to explain something. The simpler the
explanation it should be PREFERRED over those that multipliy
entities unneccessarily. There is no need to burden ourselves with
extra entities when a simpler one is available.
WD: I agree with your
first statement. Except that I would push it a step further, it is
of little value to argue what existed before the Big Bang. You
would agree that there was timelessness before the Big Bang. How
can we then assert that there could be a timeless creator which
created the universe (not to mention time) during timelessness
itself? I do not think there is a timeless creator for the cosmos.
Which is why I reject the 1st and 3rd premise of the Kalam
Cosmological Argument. I do not think we know enough about physical
cosmology to ascertain if an actual infinite past can occur or if
time exists as a closed loop.
I think it is
precisely because of our inability to observe outside of the
universe that we can't draw any conclusions regarding non-physical
causation. Sure, we know a lot about physical causation. But what
do we know about non physical causation? Nothing, absolutely
nothing! Cause and effect is a universal law, which means it's
principles hold true "in this universe". To then assume that it is
also applicable to the causation of the universe, which if it did
happen, would happen "outside the universe" is the Fallacy of
Composition. Perhaps it is a little fuzzy; I'll try to give an
example.
Set theory can help
clarify. Suppose that everything, including the universe and
whatever is outside of it is denoted as P. The universe is
contained within P and we shall call it Q. Q is a part of P. To say
that since the principle of cause and effect is true of Q, and it
is therefore true of P is the fallacy I'm pointing to. Moreover I
wish to add that causality cannot take place outside of time. I
think it it is senseless to speak of the universe as having a
cause since the very notion of "cause" involves temporal
priority.
I strongly disagree
with the methodology of Occam Razor. Simplicity is not always the
best answer, not to mention not the most true. Preferences for
epistemology aside, I find Bayesian Confirmation Theory to be much
more useful at establishing truth claims.
BIC: 1. I think
humility should prevail when we have reached the limits of human
reasoning and inquiry. We can wax eloquent about speculative things
but it is still nothing but speculation. What we both should
realise that in talking about what caused the universe we have left
the physical universe and are talking about metaphysics. No more
can we talk about empirical science or observations, or proofs and
verification of anything. We are now arguing about what we BELIEVE
and the reasonableness of belief, not what we can prove. What we
have are arguments, not evidence. We cannot conclude based on what
we do not know, but on what we do know. So it is about which
argument makes the better case. If you are agnostic about it, then
you cannot use your agnosticism to rule out my beliefs or to judge
it wrong. Which comes back to the question, why can't I conclude
that the cause of the universe is timeless? If time is an effect,
the cause must be timeless i.e. not bound by time. And because the
universe has a beginning, it is LOGICAL and reasonable to
conclude that it has a cause because it is also supported by all
our experience which tells us that everything that began to exists
has a cause. Again you need to be clear as to whether you are being
agnostic about the cause or are you denying there is a
cause?
2. Your set theory
example is flawed because it is ASSUMING that P is like Q, but just
bigger to include Q. I am arguing that anything that can cause Q to
exists is qualitatively different from Q. There is thus no fallacy
of composition.
3. Occam's Razor is
pretty much used everywhere. It is the economy of explanation that
people look for. The simplest answer may certainly not be the best
answer because the right answer could be anything but simple. But
that's where the need to argue your case comes in. You have to give
good reasons why Occam's Razor should not be applied in that
instance to prefer the simpler explanation that can still explain
the phenomena we wish to explain.
4. I'm happy to know
that you are enjoying this discussion. So am I. Ignore the noise
generated by the trolls like beta though. I'll do house-keeping as
often as I can to keep out the trash and hopefully keep the thread
alive and not being locked.
WD: You cannot
conclude that the cause of the universe is timeless because you
can't have "cause and effect" without time. If you wish to assert
that the universe has a cause, then you must also accept that time
existed before the universe began to exist. Otherwise, the whole
idea of causality is pointless in the absence of temporal priority.
I also wish to reiterate that time is not an effect , time is the
prerequisite for cause and effect. I am denying that there is a
cause; that's my position with respect to
causality.
P is like Q? Not at
all! Q is a subset of P. I don't understand what you mean by
"Anything that can cause Q to exist is qualitatively different from
Q." To argue that since everything in Q has a cause, therefore the
universe has a cause (an occurence in set P, outside of Q) is the
Fallacy of Composition. Or perhaps you could explain how there can
be a cause of the universe in the absence of
time?
You just gave the
answer youself haha. Which is, the simplest explanation may not
necessarily be the best explanation. Furthermore, occam's razor has
been used to argue against the existence of God that the universe
spontaneously came into existence* (Daniel Dennett, 2007), just to
give an example. On the other hand, I have offered another
epistimic tool - Bayesian Confirmation Theory, where we can assess
the prior probabilities with regards to claims. This is especially
useful in determining the probabilty of resurrection accounts in
critical history** (F. H Bradley, 1877).
* Cambridge Companion
to Atheism, Michael Martin, Chapter 8; Cambridge University
Press.
** Presuppositions of
Critical History, F. H Bradley, The British
Library.
BIC: 1. By saying that
you can't have cause and effect with time you are not making the
distinction between that which is eternal and that which is
temporal. As mentioned earlier, the cause of time must be timeless.
That the universe has a cause is more reasonable than to assert
that it has no cause. If the universe has no cause then it must
have existed forever, but this is certainly not true. I argue that
time is an effect in the sense that it has a beginning and thus
requires a cause. While it is difficult for you to conceive of
anything outside of time, there is nothing illogical about an
eternal cause bringing about the existence of time simultaneously
with space and matter.
2. To say that Q is a
subset of P is to assume at the very least that Q shares similar
attributes or characteristics with P. Wouldn't you then be
committing the fallacy of composition by assuming that too? You are
saying that just because cause and effects are time bound,
therefore the cause of time itself must also be time bound and thus
you pose back the question to me. But I am arguing that the cause
of the universe (space time matter) is wholly other, an entity that
is not subject to the universe and its confines. Consider an
analogy, the creator of the computer is wholly other, i.e. human,
not a computer itself.
3. To use Occam's
Razor to argue against the existence of God is flawed. In the first
place, this is attributed to Bishop Ockham who is certainly a
believer in God. Secondly, I am also arguing that God is a
NECESSARY BEING, and thus He is in a sense the precondition for the
existence of the universe which is a contingent entity. I suck at
maths and statistics, but I think while it may be useful to
determine the probability of something happening it is not useful
to argue about the existence of causes.
