Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The One Minute Case Against the Cosmological Argument


Meta Blog

Recommended Posts

The cosmological, or “first cause” argument, is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God.


St. Thomas Aquinas stated it as:


  1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
  2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
  3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
  4. Therefore, there must be a first cause.


The stylized “proof from the big bang” is:


  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.


Both proofs contain several problematic claims:


A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


Imagine two indestructible balls in space. The balls begin in a stationary position some distance apart. From a standstill, gravity will bring them together until they bounce apart. They will gradually slow down, appear to pause, and then bounce again. If the system is closed, the balls will bounce off each other indefinitely. Each ball is the cause of the other’s motion — yet the system does not have a cause. If we passively observe the balls bouncing, we will only be able to view them for an arbitrary length of time, yet the series stretches back to infinity.


The universe is an entity.


This is an equivocation known as the fallacy of composition. The universe can be defined as “the set containing all entities in existence.” The universe is not itself an entity, but a collection of entities. All entities in the universe may be finite, but the set of entities need not be.


There is a cause “outside the universe.”


For there to be a cause, there must be an entity doing the causation. If the universe is the set of all existing entities, that entity must be part of the universe. An entity cannot be its own cause, so it cannot have created the universe.


The universe began to exist.


The cosmological argument defines “universe” as the set of events since creation, and places the first cause “beyond” our timeline. But time is a relative measure of the rate of change between entities, not an absolute linear constant. It is a contradiction of the concept of time to speak of a “time before time.” There cannot be such thing as a “timeless” entity because time includes all causal interactions, including the initial one. It is meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of entities, because time is a property of entities itself.


The universe has always existed — but this means only that as long as the universe has existed, so has time.


The first cause is God.


Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, it does not follow that that cause is God. Why should the first cause be a complex and conscious entity conforming to a particular religion? It is more logical to conclude that the origin of the universe is the simplest one possible, since all higher-level causes derive from it. The difference between science and religious dogma is that science is falsifiable, whereas dogma is not. How could one prove that the universe created by a personal, Christian God, and not a Hindu deity, a computer hacker in another dimension, or the flying spaghetti monster?


Further reading:




OneMinuteCase?i=BDAighhA OneMinuteCase?i=oTQBfHJG OneMinuteCase?i=WlDLtSYX OneMinuteCase?i=VsguXGmM OneMinuteCase?i=r0NY2Fxa


View the full post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Imagine two indestructible balls in space. The balls begin in a stationary position some distance apart. From a standstill, gravity will bring them together until they bounce apart. They will gradually slow down, appear to pause, and then bounce again. If the system is closed, the balls will bounce off each other indefinitely. Each ball is the cause of the other’s motion — yet the system does not have a cause. If we passively observe the balls bouncing, we will only be able to view them for an arbitrary length of time, yet the series stretches back to infinity.

I do not understand how such a series can stretch back to infinity. We can say that "the balls will bounce off each other indefinitely" as a potential, but to say that "the series stretches back to infinity" is to say that they have already bounced off each other indefinitely, which I think is nonsensical. How can an indefinite amount of actions be actualized, as this example seems to suggest that it would?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One minute to screw up metaphysics.

A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

The universe is an entity.

2 giant objections to this.

It is true that a causal chain cannot be of infinite length. An infinite causal chain would be comprised of an infinite number of entities, or an infinite amount of time. Neither of those exist.

The universe does not have to be considered an entity in order to make the claim that it is finite. The universe is finite because the law of identity applies to it. It is an error to think that the universe is finite because all of the things in it are finite, that would be the fallacy of composition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there cannot be a causal chain of infinite length, then all causal chains must be finite and therefore have had a beginning. Though we know that the universe does not have a cause, doesn't this argument demonstrate that there must be a first cause? I don't see where it is in err.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there cannot be a causal chain of infinite length, then all causal chains must be finite and therefore have had a beginning. Though we know that the universe does not have a cause, doesn't this argument demonstrate that there must be a first cause? I don't see where it is in err.

It is not in error. That the universe exists is a fact and it makes no sense to look for external causes. The universe is a first cause.

Arguing against the cosmological argument by attacking the possibility of first causes is mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is often value in determining not only that an argument is wrong, but how it is wrong (what errors it contains, so that they may be identified and avoided in the future) -- and that is why I ask.

How can the universe be the first cause? The first cause must be a beginning of some sort. Are you saying that at some point the universe caused the beginning of all causes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is often value in determining not only that an argument is wrong, but how it is wrong (what errors it contains, so that they may be identified and avoided in the future) -- and that is why I ask.

How can the universe be the first cause? The first cause must be a beginning of some sort. Are you saying that at some point the universe caused the beginning of all causes?

No, I"m observing that the universe has no explanation. I can observe and know the universe exists without an explanation, an explanation would not make it somehow "exist more" or make my knowledge of its existence more certain. Saying the universe is a first cause is just another way of saying "existence exists".

The Objectivist understanding of causality is that entities act, not that events cause other events. Time is a property of the universe, making the universe as a whole eternal in the sense of timeless, not infinitely ancient. Observing that things exist and that there was no time when nothing existed means there is no explanation in terms of antecedents for why the universe exists. "No explanation in terms of antecedents" is a first cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that the universe has no cause, but I do not see how the universe itself can be a cause; or the first cause for that matter.

Metaphysically speaking: given that the universe does exist, it is the cause of all else that exists. This is a use of the word "cause" best understood in the "material cause" sense, not as an agent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have is understanding what is to be said specifically about causal chains. The universe has no cause, but do all causal chains also have no cause? Or if they do have a cause, what is that cause and at what point in time did this cause occur (because cause, I think, implies beginning)?

I can wrap my head around the idea that everything that exists always existed, but not that there are causal chains which must be numerically finite, yet have no beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I have is understanding what is to be said specifically about causal chains. The universe has no cause, but do all causal chains also have no cause? Or if they do have a cause, what is that cause and at what point in time did this cause occur (because cause, I think, implies beginning)?

I can wrap my head around the idea that everything that exists always existed, but not that there are causal chains which must be numerically finite, yet have no beginning.

In the following diagram let an arrow -> be an action by an entity that causes some reaction by another entity.

Objective version:

(entity)->(entity)->(entity)-> ...

All causal sequences terminate in the past in some primary entity. Something exists first before any causation happens. That something is an entity, with identity and is finite. The universe as whole can work here if the arrows are understood as acting upon itself internally.

Cosmo version:

->(entity)->(entity)->(entity)->

A mysterious prime mover sets all causal chains in motion. The "first cause" really is first. It is a mysterious force, unseen yet mighty, indefinite and omnipotent, it is God.

The cosmological argument is about the past, but one could just a well ask why does the universe continue to exist. This simplifies the question by setting it in the present and removing long causal chains. The Objectivist answer ends up the same, with some kind of ultimate constituents of matter (perhaps smaller than the known subatomic particles) which cannot be analyzed into smaller parts serving the role of a primary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...