Atheists: What do you think of the cosmological argument for god?

Question

And yes, I know there ain't no THE cosmological argument. Personally, I think our conception of time and our lack of knowledge about the laws 'before' the Big Bang render us unable to accept a First Cause. That being said, I find it much more convincing than the ontological or teleological arguments and think it is probably the strongest argument around for at least a Deist conception of God. So, while I don't except this argument, I would call myself a weak atheist towards all possible deist gods (conscious/intending creation or not) as opposed to a strong atheist towards the specific theistic variants that have been proposed. Also, does anyone have a concise explanation of potential infinites vs. actual infinites (in dealing with causal chains)? What do you guys think?

Answer 1

"I think our conception of time and our lack of knowledge about the laws 'before' the Big Bang render us unable to accept a First Cause."



That's not why i reject the first-cause argument. It has some inherent problems. The initial statement of everything that exists has to have a cause, gets rebutted only a few lines later when you state that the first cause had to be uncaused. Either everything that exists needs a cause or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways. If God needs a cause then you have infinite regress problems. If God doesn't need a cause then nothing else does either. I do believe the universe had a cause though. Not a "why or who" but a "how and what?" But I also admit that I may be wrong in that belief. It's always a good idea NOT to get tied to your speculations.



Actual infinites would be like the set of all natural numbers. They go on forever, but they only exist in the abstract, not in physical reality. It has nothing to do with whether or not infinite things exist in nature.

Answer 2

yet William Lane Craigs argument nonetheless comes for the duration of as a God of the Gaps argument. There does no longer might desire to be a cosmological clarification if there replace into basically tangible data. The cosmological argument of usual causation is basically a theoretical place, no longer according to data. as a result the rejection nonetheless stands on grounds of 'there is not any data to help the existence of the christian God. As somebody else has somewhat rightly reported, the guy is basically a Spin doctor. while you are going to look at WLC's arguments for the existence of the monotheistic God, then basically look at each and all the counter arguments against christianity ordinarily. The cosmological argument does not relatively even start to sign in whilst in comparison with the countless different positions with regard to the existence of the christian God.

Answer 3

Okay, I'll agree with you. It is the strongest of the arguments listed and the Deist concept of God is second only to the (official) Buddhist and agnostic lines of "religious" belief in God. ("We don't really know the details")



I am a fire-breathing atheist with regard to any specific claims about God: what he is, wants, or does. If what we know about the early universe will fit in a bucket and what we purport about the "universe" prior to the Big Bang will fit in a thimble, how could any knowledgeable person even begin to speculate on what must surely be the inconceivable vastness of a "first mover" who still exists in the Post-Big Bang world.



Is that a contradiction? I lean toward it being so. I am a weak atheist with regard to me, personally, having the brain power to conceptually understand "everything," let alone apply it, let alone with a high degree of probability.



I suppose that as I get older (50's), I have less fear (for lack of a better word) about "the cause." It just don't bother me to think of it as an "unending cycle." As in, "our" big bang was the end result of the "prior" big bang's universe, and the "next" will end ours. And, as I alluded in my second paragraph, as science learns more & more about the universe in total, the size of God necessary as a first mover moves farther and farther out into a scale of "impossible" or "Einstein's God." Take your pick.



With regard to infinite, I think in terms far more basic. Infinite is a problem of our own limited existence...as individual beings and as an enlightened scientific culture. If a billion years isn't realistically infinite from the human scale of existence, I think the speaker is missing the point. Obviously, on the other hand, a billion years isn't so from the POV of the universe. To parallel to humanity, it would have to be at least a million billion years...a billion billion....? Is there really (a practical) difference between potential infinites vs. actual infinites philosophically speaking?

Answer 4

From the Wikipedia definition of the Ontological argument:



"The cosmological argument, or "first cause" argument, takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe. The cause is assumed to be God."



In my opinion it is a huge leap to go from saying something caused the universe, to saying that God caused the universe. You could just as easily say it was two hyperdimensional branes colliding that caused it, which indeed is what some scientist hypothesize.

Answer 5

Actual infinite is an impossibility. *Hilbert Hotel Paradox (mathematical proof).

Potential infinite has an end point, though it could be vastly and unimaginably large.



Let's say, if Paul has eternal (infinite) lifespan in heaven, then god will not have omniscient knowledge for all of Paul's life because the infinite lifespan has no boundary and no limit and god's knowledge for trying to reach to near the end of the endless point would still be no nearer to the "near endpoint" even if that takes forever.



However, if Paul's lifespan is a potential infinite (not eternal), then that defines a boundary, and all knowledge of Paul's life would be contained within and could be known.



**there's a flaw in the cosmological argument: though universe is finite, the matter/energy of the universe exists and always existed (law of conservation of energy). To put the premise that god always existed, why not matter/energy always existed? Using Occam's Razor, it would then be better to not introduce another variable (of god)! Moreover, if god is taken as First Cause, that is a special pleading that god should be exempted from any cause. Why not apply the special pleading case to tooth fairy, Tao, or Buddha?



***Lol, that link is misleading. Food industry use pasteurisation - destroying microbial organisms - to preserve food.



Certain subjects under exploration like QM and False Vacuum are still in its infancy, though these might puzzle some as to why 'something may arise out of nothing'. Just as it is hypothesised that an ounce of False Vaccum should be sufficient to create a whole universe. QM's theory on black hole singularity that 'our universe may end just abruptly into nothing, or that the origin of something/universe may be started from origin that could not be traced' is something that puzzled Stephen Hawking himself, that he was hesitant on whether Big Bang was the start of the universe!

Answer 6

it's definitely the strongest argument when compared to the ontological or teleological arguments, but that ain't saying much. i mean the argument is basically



1. everything has a cause

2. the universe exists

3. the universe had a cause.



well right off the bat you are off to a bad start because in quantum mechanics causality may break down due to the inherent uncertainty in the system. so premise one is contestable.

but even if we grant it, the conclusion is that the universe had a cause, A cause. to say that is still a bit short of a deistic god is colossal understatement. there is no reason to ascribe to it any kind of intelligence or intent. and you are still left with the task of explaining god. claiming it is the "uncaused cause" is pointless rhetoric, it's not an explanation of anything.

Answer 7

I can understand both sides of the argument... The problem with the deist side is... You accept nothing other then evidence for any other argument in your lives...Why do you accept without evidence in this case..



A natural explanation requires no evidence other then..I don't know... but I am trying to find out...



The deist explanation requires a huge leap to say.. I don't know.. But since I don't know it must have been a god... To me...This is just as rational as saying.. I'm not a mechanic so it must be a god that makes my car move... This of course is a very simplistic idea but you get the meaning...

Answer 8

What i think is there must be divinity on some level but there's no way to prove it without mass divine intervention. I am an Agnostic Theist as a result.

Answer 9

I think science may not know everything but we get closer every day.



How can you be a weak atheist? Either you believe in god(s) or you don't. If you are unsure, you're agnostic.

Answer 10

It is a faulty logical argument, based on a series on unjustified assertions.



Some of its assertions are directly refuted by modern science - namely, quantum physics.

Answer 11

I dont think anything about any argument for or against God. I know what I know and it is never open to discussion as it is between God and me--not between other people and me.

Answer 12

Your use of double negatives makes it sound like you support atheism.



Please fix your grammar.

Answer 13

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument