Hey how's it going? I've got this assignment due in two days for my Philosophy of Religion class at uni. It's a dialogue between a theist and a skeptic in relation to the cosmological argument for the existence of God. I need 90% for all my assessment to eventually get into my Psychology masters, so thought I'd post it up here to see if anyone can give me some more scientific feed back on some of the points raised in the essay. I appreciate any help. (by the way I referenced everything throughout the essay in footnotes but unfortunately they don't show up in this post, but the bibliography is still included). Thanks. Tim.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Research Project
Thomasina = Theist
David = Skeptic
Thomasina: I believe that there are logical arguments for the existence of God.
David: I’m not so sure about that. What logical arguments support the existence of a so called ‘God’?
Thomasina: The Cosmological Argument logically proves God’s existence. Thomas Aquinas , one of the Cosmological Argument’s greatest proponents, argued that:
1. Everything is caused by something other than itself.
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The series of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the series of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. The first cause is god.
David: Now hold on just a second there. There are so many flaws to that argument. To start with, if everything is caused by something else, then what caused God? If something else caused God then the whole argument becomes ineffective, as it would simply regress into an infinite number of causes. Therefore there would be no first cause, and consequently no God.
Thomasina: Well, there is a problem there, and that very point has been raised in objection to this argument previously. Thomas Aquinas’s version of the Cosmological Argument has for this reason been modified by others in order to remedy this problematic premise. Most notable is the kalam argument which was created by Arabic Philosopher and recently defended by William Lane Craig. Here Craig changes the first premise to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. And seeing as how God is eternal and never began to exist, this avoids the problem of infinitely regressing causes.
David: But still, how can you say that everything that begins to exist has a cause? How can you know that? Quantum Physics has recently shown that electrons can pass in and out of existence with no apparent cause whatsoever! , If this is true, then your argument fails on its second premise, because if things can begin without the need for a cause, then the first thing that began to exist may not have needed a cause either. Therefore if there is no need for a first cause, then there is no need for a God.
Thomasina: Look, the field of quantum physics is as mysterious as the concept of God anyway. Many physicists dislike quantum theory because of these many oddities. In fact Einstein said that ‘Quantum theory is very worthy of regard’, but he really did dislike it. He went onto say that ‘it seems hard to sneak a look at God’s cards. But that He plays dice and uses “telepathic” methods…is something that I cannot believe for a single moment.’
David: But now you are committing the 3rd fallacy in arguments, ‘appeals to authority’. Simply because Einstein is well known and highly respected, does not mean his opinion is valid. I would prefer it if we could just stick to the evidence, rather then who said it.
Thomasina: Okay, fair enough, let’s look at the evidence then. Your counterargument is that electrons can pass in and out of existence with no apparent cause. However for this to be true the electrons must come from nothing and this is not the case at all. This quantum phenomenon is simply the result of vacuum fluctuations. Therefore there is in fact no observed instance, thus far, of anything coming into existence without a cause. So the first cause argument still stands.
David: Well that might be so, but your cosmological argument fails on its 3rd premise, that ‘the series of causes cannot be infinitely long.’ Why can’t the universe simply be infinite? If there was no beginning, then there is no need for someone or something to have caused it, it would have simply already been. Therefore the first cause argument becomes redundant because there isn’t a beginning that needs to be caused.
Thomasina: An actual infinite leads to absurd consequences. The idea of an actual infinite would mean that a subset within that infinite would have to be equivalent to the whole set. Either that or the subset being infinite would not be equivalent to the whole infinite set that it is part of. The concept of an actual infinite being in reality, leads to these absurd consequences. Therefore the idea that the universe wouldn’t need a first cause due to it being infinite is also absurd. Besides, it has been scientifically shown that our universe did have a beginning. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered in 1965 at Bell Laboratories the background radiation left over from the Big Bang.
David: How can you say Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson’s discovery has scientifically shown that our universe had a beginning? They themselves thought the hiss in their radio equipment was some sort of useless interference. They spent a year trying to get rid of it, they are even quoted as saying they cleaned the radio dish with scrubbing brushes carefully removing any ‘white dielectric material’, or what is commonly known as bird crap. All this was done in order to get rid of the background hiss. How can you say a discovery such as this scientifically shows anything, let alone the evidence for the beginning of the universe?
Thomasina: Although the discovery may have been made inadvertently, it is still recognized by the scientific community as a whole, as a scientific discovery. And although it may not prove that there was a Big Bang, it certainly backs up the theory. As do other scientific discoveries such as Edwin Hubble’s discovery that light from distant galaxies is red-shifted, which implies that the universe is expanding from an initial point of expansion which took place a finite time ago. So modern scientific discoveries and theories are definitely pointing towards a beginning to the universe, rather then an infinite universe.
David: Look, that’s all well and good, but supposing that the first cause was this so called God, what can we even really know about God through the cosmological argument’s assertions anyway? All the argument shows is that God is, but we do not know what God is. In reality, what is the point of the cosmological argument, if all it does is point to something that we cannot know anything about?
Thomasina: What you are saying, is that God is of no use to us if we cannot put labels on Him, and say that He ‘is this’ or He ‘is that’. However to put labels on Him would be to restrict Him to what ‘this’ and ‘that’ are. God in His very nature is absolute and to a certain extent indescribable by human standards. What we cannot know about God isn’t a failure in the cosmological argument, but rather a failing in our own limited human comprehension.
David: Still the main problem with this argument remains. It concludes that this first cause has to be God. Why does it have to be God at all? We can only be justified in believing that the first cause was God if we believe there will never be discovered any other natural explanation for it. However we just don’t know what future discoveries will show. It is more rational to look for a natural cause rather then a supernatural cause. “Appealing to the supernatural does not increase our understanding. It simply masks the fact that we do not yet understand.”
Thomasina: Appealing to the supernatural is the fundamental focus of the cosmological argument. Thomas Aquinas argued that something cannot be self-caused because then it would have to precede itself, which is impossible. You are saying that we should look for a cause within nature in order to find what caused nature. Yet as stated this is impossible because it is impossible for nature to be self-caused because nature would itself have to have preceded nature in order to have caused itself. What you call more rational, is in fact absurd. In order to find a cause for nature, we need to look to the supernatural, not the natural. You also say that we can only be justified in believing that the first cause was God if we believe there will never be discovered any other natural explanation for it. However as I have just shown, finding a natural explanation for nature’s cause, is in fact impossible because it cannot be self caused. Therefore by your own proposal we must conclude that we are fully justified in believing that the first cause was God.
Bibliography
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (New York: Benziger Bros Inc, 1947).
Charles L. Bennett, Cosmology from start to finish (Nature Publishing Group, 2006).
Bill Bryson, A short History of Nearly Everything (Great Britain: Doubleday, 2003).
Donald R. Burrill, ed., The Cosmological Arguments A Spectrum of Opinion (U.S.A: Anchor Books, 1967).
William Lane Craig, The cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz (U.S.A: Harper & Row Publishers Inc, 1980).
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (U.S.A: Baker Books, 2007).
John Hick, Paul Edwards, ed., The Existence of God (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964).
C. Stephen Layman, Letters to Doubting Thomas: a case for the existence of God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
John Laird, Theism and Cosmology (Great Britain: Unwin Brothers LTD, 1940).
T.J. Mawson, Belief in God: an introduction to the philosophy of religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, David Basinger, Reason & religious belief: an introduction to the philosophy of religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Theodore Schick. “The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html (accessed: June 22, 2008).
Western, Burton, Kowalski, Psychology (Qld: John Wiley & Sons Australia LTD, 2006).
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Research Project
Thomasina = Theist
David = Skeptic
Thomasina: I believe that there are logical arguments for the existence of God.
David: I’m not so sure about that. What logical arguments support the existence of a so called ‘God’?
Thomasina: The Cosmological Argument logically proves God’s existence. Thomas Aquinas , one of the Cosmological Argument’s greatest proponents, argued that:
1. Everything is caused by something other than itself.
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The series of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the series of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. The first cause is god.
David: Now hold on just a second there. There are so many flaws to that argument. To start with, if everything is caused by something else, then what caused God? If something else caused God then the whole argument becomes ineffective, as it would simply regress into an infinite number of causes. Therefore there would be no first cause, and consequently no God.
Thomasina: Well, there is a problem there, and that very point has been raised in objection to this argument previously. Thomas Aquinas’s version of the Cosmological Argument has for this reason been modified by others in order to remedy this problematic premise. Most notable is the kalam argument which was created by Arabic Philosopher and recently defended by William Lane Craig. Here Craig changes the first premise to say that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. And seeing as how God is eternal and never began to exist, this avoids the problem of infinitely regressing causes.
David: But still, how can you say that everything that begins to exist has a cause? How can you know that? Quantum Physics has recently shown that electrons can pass in and out of existence with no apparent cause whatsoever! , If this is true, then your argument fails on its second premise, because if things can begin without the need for a cause, then the first thing that began to exist may not have needed a cause either. Therefore if there is no need for a first cause, then there is no need for a God.
Thomasina: Look, the field of quantum physics is as mysterious as the concept of God anyway. Many physicists dislike quantum theory because of these many oddities. In fact Einstein said that ‘Quantum theory is very worthy of regard’, but he really did dislike it. He went onto say that ‘it seems hard to sneak a look at God’s cards. But that He plays dice and uses “telepathic” methods…is something that I cannot believe for a single moment.’
David: But now you are committing the 3rd fallacy in arguments, ‘appeals to authority’. Simply because Einstein is well known and highly respected, does not mean his opinion is valid. I would prefer it if we could just stick to the evidence, rather then who said it.
Thomasina: Okay, fair enough, let’s look at the evidence then. Your counterargument is that electrons can pass in and out of existence with no apparent cause. However for this to be true the electrons must come from nothing and this is not the case at all. This quantum phenomenon is simply the result of vacuum fluctuations. Therefore there is in fact no observed instance, thus far, of anything coming into existence without a cause. So the first cause argument still stands.
David: Well that might be so, but your cosmological argument fails on its 3rd premise, that ‘the series of causes cannot be infinitely long.’ Why can’t the universe simply be infinite? If there was no beginning, then there is no need for someone or something to have caused it, it would have simply already been. Therefore the first cause argument becomes redundant because there isn’t a beginning that needs to be caused.
Thomasina: An actual infinite leads to absurd consequences. The idea of an actual infinite would mean that a subset within that infinite would have to be equivalent to the whole set. Either that or the subset being infinite would not be equivalent to the whole infinite set that it is part of. The concept of an actual infinite being in reality, leads to these absurd consequences. Therefore the idea that the universe wouldn’t need a first cause due to it being infinite is also absurd. Besides, it has been scientifically shown that our universe did have a beginning. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered in 1965 at Bell Laboratories the background radiation left over from the Big Bang.
David: How can you say Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson’s discovery has scientifically shown that our universe had a beginning? They themselves thought the hiss in their radio equipment was some sort of useless interference. They spent a year trying to get rid of it, they are even quoted as saying they cleaned the radio dish with scrubbing brushes carefully removing any ‘white dielectric material’, or what is commonly known as bird crap. All this was done in order to get rid of the background hiss. How can you say a discovery such as this scientifically shows anything, let alone the evidence for the beginning of the universe?
Thomasina: Although the discovery may have been made inadvertently, it is still recognized by the scientific community as a whole, as a scientific discovery. And although it may not prove that there was a Big Bang, it certainly backs up the theory. As do other scientific discoveries such as Edwin Hubble’s discovery that light from distant galaxies is red-shifted, which implies that the universe is expanding from an initial point of expansion which took place a finite time ago. So modern scientific discoveries and theories are definitely pointing towards a beginning to the universe, rather then an infinite universe.
David: Look, that’s all well and good, but supposing that the first cause was this so called God, what can we even really know about God through the cosmological argument’s assertions anyway? All the argument shows is that God is, but we do not know what God is. In reality, what is the point of the cosmological argument, if all it does is point to something that we cannot know anything about?
Thomasina: What you are saying, is that God is of no use to us if we cannot put labels on Him, and say that He ‘is this’ or He ‘is that’. However to put labels on Him would be to restrict Him to what ‘this’ and ‘that’ are. God in His very nature is absolute and to a certain extent indescribable by human standards. What we cannot know about God isn’t a failure in the cosmological argument, but rather a failing in our own limited human comprehension.
David: Still the main problem with this argument remains. It concludes that this first cause has to be God. Why does it have to be God at all? We can only be justified in believing that the first cause was God if we believe there will never be discovered any other natural explanation for it. However we just don’t know what future discoveries will show. It is more rational to look for a natural cause rather then a supernatural cause. “Appealing to the supernatural does not increase our understanding. It simply masks the fact that we do not yet understand.”
Thomasina: Appealing to the supernatural is the fundamental focus of the cosmological argument. Thomas Aquinas argued that something cannot be self-caused because then it would have to precede itself, which is impossible. You are saying that we should look for a cause within nature in order to find what caused nature. Yet as stated this is impossible because it is impossible for nature to be self-caused because nature would itself have to have preceded nature in order to have caused itself. What you call more rational, is in fact absurd. In order to find a cause for nature, we need to look to the supernatural, not the natural. You also say that we can only be justified in believing that the first cause was God if we believe there will never be discovered any other natural explanation for it. However as I have just shown, finding a natural explanation for nature’s cause, is in fact impossible because it cannot be self caused. Therefore by your own proposal we must conclude that we are fully justified in believing that the first cause was God.
Bibliography
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (New York: Benziger Bros Inc, 1947).
Charles L. Bennett, Cosmology from start to finish (Nature Publishing Group, 2006).
Bill Bryson, A short History of Nearly Everything (Great Britain: Doubleday, 2003).
Donald R. Burrill, ed., The Cosmological Arguments A Spectrum of Opinion (U.S.A: Anchor Books, 1967).
William Lane Craig, The cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz (U.S.A: Harper & Row Publishers Inc, 1980).
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (U.S.A: Baker Books, 2007).
John Hick, Paul Edwards, ed., The Existence of God (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964).
C. Stephen Layman, Letters to Doubting Thomas: a case for the existence of God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
John Laird, Theism and Cosmology (Great Britain: Unwin Brothers LTD, 1940).
T.J. Mawson, Belief in God: an introduction to the philosophy of religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, David Basinger, Reason & religious belief: an introduction to the philosophy of religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Theodore Schick. “The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html (accessed: June 22, 2008).
Western, Burton, Kowalski, Psychology (Qld: John Wiley & Sons Australia LTD, 2006).
