The funny thing is, they completely skip over the concept of god. You can use the cosmological argument to refute the existence of god.
Exactly how does that work? Could you explain?
I would love to, but I can't. Was that what you were hoping I would say? Maybe not, maybe you really are curious? Is it worth my time to explain it? I guess since I love my letter attaching ability so much, why not, even if you get nothing out of it.
Toss out the universe, let's just deal with the big man, er um thing, god. The argument supposes that god has no cause because god is infinite or eternal or uncreated. Most would not argue that, and I am not going to argue it here either. I'll let it go even though it is also flawed reasoning.
So we have this infinite god who is not caused. There is no universe, because well we don't really need it for this argument and also I'm talking about the god before the universe was made anyways.
So the argument implies that you can't have an infinite amount of previous causes, because you never can get to the first cause that started the line of preceding causes. Despite this also being flawed, I won't depute it here.
We will place god, into a realm where time doesn't exist either. Even though I believe that no such existence could exist in a timeless dimension, I will allow it just because I know the god supporters love that argument. It is flawed and some of you might have already heard or read why that is not possible, but I won't go into here either.
So god is the unmovable mover, the creator right? He is the first cause, right? Well exactly when or how would god do anything? Wouldn't this imply that god has had an infinite amount of things to do? Er had done? I mean, at what point would god have had the idea, "You know, I think I will create a universe." Well according to the cosmological argument, god would never arrive at that question or statement. Why, because he would have had to have had, an infinite amount of previous thoughts or activities, he wouldn't have had the time to create the universe. Ha! like my joke? (probably not)
If the cosmological argument works for the universe to have a cause, then by all means god's own thoughts would have to obey the cosmological argument theory. But I can already hear the rebuttals. "God doesn't think linearly like we do." or "God can have an infinite amount of thoughts all at the same time because he is not bound by the same rules that we are."
Well if god has the ability to have an infinite amount of thoughts all at the same time, then god created the universe an infinite amount of time ago. Oh no! If the universe was created an infinite amount of time ago, then doesn't that mean that the cosmological argument is contradicting god? "Wait a minute Krumple, hold on a second, why if god has infinite thought ability does it imply he created the universe an infinite amount of time ago?"
Well because we are dealing with infinity. God only needs to have one thought, "Create the universe" however if he has that one thought within a series of infinite thoughts then god would have that thought at precisely the same time as all those other thoughts. Since time also doesn't exist for god it places the creation time an infinite amount of time ago. The point is, god would never get to the point of creating the universe even with having an infinite amount of thoughts. Not fifteen billion years ago, not even an infinite amount of time ago.
If you still do not fully grasp what I am saying, all you have to do is substitute the universe with god in the argument and by the end you will see that people have neglected to do their math.
What I don't understand is why the argument supposes that God has no cause.
But, more important than that, even if God has no cause, or even if we don't know what that cause is, how would that mean that God is not the cause of the universe?
So, I (fully) grasp what you are saying (I think) but I don't think it is right. To repeat: you seem to be arguing that if God has no cause, or He does, but we don't know what it is, that God could not have caused the universe.
And I don't see why you think that is true. If I have not (fully) grasp what you wrote, then do correct me. But if I have, could you please explain why you think you are right?
Alright, well let's examine this idea a little. It is a valid question.
If god has a cause, then by all means he would be equal to that of the universe in the sense it plays in the cosmological argument. If the argument is to state that a cause must have a causer then the question becomes. If god has a cause, then who or what is god's cause? You run into the same problem with the cause of the universe. You are no closer to an answer to the question, what caused the universe? In fact you added another problem onto the question. So you could say, that god also has a cause but then the cosmological argument is useless. (which it is but for other reasons)
This is also a very good and valid question. The cosmological argument does not answer if god created the universe, it only tries to state that the universe must have a causer or first cause. ie. god. But you are perfectly right in saying that there could be a god that did not create the universe, or that some other god created the universe. The argument doesn't address this and neither did I but my argument still holds regardless of this question. Why, because we are talking about the cause of the universe. (what caused the universe?) My argument is that god would never be able to arrive at the moment to create the universe, thus god could not be the cause of the universe.
Actually what you say here, is not what my argument is. I am using the cosmological argument to state that god could not have caused the universe. Since this is the case, then I take the step to say that god would not exist because it nullified the cosmological argument. Basically saying you don't need a creator or cause because the same argument cancels out the need for a creator of the universe.
The problem is really with dealing with infinities (yes plural). Just like someone has mentioned and mentioned many times, infinities actually don't exist, they are just a mathematical construct. Not to mention that humans have a very difficult time grasping just what an infinity is. But that doesn't stop us from slapping the label onto things like god, the universe or how much money the U.S. is willing to barrow from the Chinese.
I could fill in all the gaps of the argument with the ones that specifically deal with no infinities, but I already assume those arguments have been refuted so I left them out to make the read shorter. If you really want me to spell it all out, I can, but is it really necessary?
I did not say that every cause must have a "causer".
I said that it is possible that God is the cause of the universe, but that God does not have a cause.
It does not follow from the premise that there is no cause of God,
that God did not cause the universe. Why would you think that it would follow?
The cosmological argument is the one making the statement, that every cause must have a causer or previous cause. I wasn't saying you were the one making the statement.
I showed how that god could not have created the universe, regardless if god has a cause or not, it has been refuted.
In my example, god not having a cause wasn't even necessary. I refuted god being the cause of the universe. It didn't matter if god was caused or not. The cosmological argument was shown by me to be flawed.
You seem to be backpedaling or purposely trying to insight confusion into the conversation.
You wrote, You can use the cosmological argument to refute the existence of god.
Can you explain, again, how that would work? I thought you said that it would work because the CA supposes that God must have a cause. But you now said it doesn't suppose that. So, could you please explain how, "you can use the cosmological argument to refute the existence of God"?
I already did. I said that since god could not be the cause of the universe then the existence of god is not necessary. If god did not create the universe then why is god necessary? Mind you that I am dealing directly with the cosmological argument and that is what the whole discussion is about. You must take my statement as a whole and I have done as I stated. You seem to be only focusing on the last half of the statement and it bothers you for some reason. I have explained it all, if you are still confused, maybe read it a few more times.
You forgot to mention why God cannot be the cause of the universe. It must have slipped your mind. How would your argument that God cannot be the cause of the universe (which you have omitted) use the cosmological argument? Since you did claim that you could use the cosmological argument to refute the existence of God. Could you show me how that works? I think I have asked you that twice before. So, to be clear: how can the cosmological argument be used to refute the existence of God? Let's start again, shall we?
Have you ever thought that to be an absolute atheist takes more faith and is more difficult to rationalize than one like me who believes there is a creator? How could nothing evolve from nothing and become everything?
The universe is unimaginable complex and sustains itself by exact precise fundamental constants, if this harmony differed in the least infinitesimal fraction we would simply not exist; indeed the earth itself would not exist.
Lets look at the Teleological argument for the existence of God!!
Although there are variations, the basic argument can be stated as follows:
- Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty.
- The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind.
- Therefore, there exists a mind that has produced or is producing nature.
- A mind that produces nature is a definition of "God."
- Therefore, God exists.
Other forms of the argument assert that a certain category of complexity necessitates a designer, such as the following...
- All things that are designed were preconceived, intended, purposed or contrived.
- Preconception, intention, purpose, and contrivance necessitate an intellect, mind or will.
- All things that are irreducibly complex display intention and preconception.
- The universe contains non-man made things that are irreducibly complex.
- Those things display intention and preconception.
- Those things necessitate an intellect, mind or will.
In the first argument, nature can be exemplified by the universe as a whole, its physical constants or laws, the evolutionary process, humankind, a particular animal species or organ like the eye, or a capability like language in humans.
Sometimes the argument is specifically based on the fact that physical constants are fine-tuned to allow life as we know it to evolve.
While most of the classic forms of this argument are linked to monotheism, some versions of the argument may substitute for God a lesser demiurge, multiple gods and/or goddesses, or perhaps extraterrestrials as cause for natural phenomena, although reapplication of the argument would still lead to an ultimate cause.
A whimsical version of the teleological argument was offered by G. K. Chesterton in 1908: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot."
Why would Chesterton have not expected all elephants to have a trunk, I wonder? And it does not seem to me odd that an elephant has a trunk, anymore than that a giraffe has a long neck. Chesterton's trick is selling you the idea that it is odd for an elephant to have a trunk, and weird for all elephants to have trunks. What would he expect?
Why concern yourself with Chesterson and his remark, rather address refute or ad to the Teleological argument for the existence of God
