I was looking over your section on debunking arguments for the existence of God and I noticed that you don't specifically cover the cosmological argument. I thought this was strange because you mentioned that you had read a lot of William Lane Craig's work. The article on the argument from design does allude to certain aspects of the cosmological argument, but I was hoping for something that directly addresses it and the kalamitous form specifically. I've observed theists falling back on it out of desperation, usually after they realize the futility of trying to glue back together the shards of the teleological argument.
The most effective way I've found to debunk it is to point out all the logical fallacies it is based on. I can post them if you're interested.
I've debunked the cosmo argument once on the christian_apologetics yahoo group but since I was quoting Craig pretty heavily I didn't think it was safe to tranfer that information here.
My opinion on ID in anti-apologetics is that an atheist should not allow a Christian to take him there. Once in the arena of ID an atheist is stuck with explaining complex scientific theories to someone who probably won't understand them anyway. Instead, I say "Congratulations, you are 100% correct: Evolution and Big Bang are wrong. Problem is, your Bible stating that the world was created a few thousand years ago before the stars and then placed on a foundation that does not move is not even remotely a good alternative. " I then go on to show him all the good reasons why Jehovah couldn't possibly exist.
Anyway - I'd LOVE to have your dissertation and tell me if I can transplant it to my site.
Which is why I've been trying to find a way to debunk it without getting too heavily into said complex scientific theories. To be honest I don't even have that complete an understanding of them myself. I'm rather partial to Dan Barker's refutal, as it focuses more on the logic of the argument than the science. Also I wouldn't want my own writing to be transferred, as it is always evolving and takes bits and pieces from other people's ideas. Satire is more my style anyway, and I probably couldn't write anything that would remotely qualify as eloquent.
This isn't to say I haven't bothered to work out the logic of the argument myself, which is typically more than theist proponents of kalam tend to do. The following seems to be the most commonly used form of the argument:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore the universe has a cause. 4) God is the most likely cause of the universe.
There are a lot of intermediary steps and explanations, but I assume anyone who's read about the argument is familiar with them. I've collected the following list of fallacies:
Fallacy of composition – The argument is based on the assumption that the universe has the same properties as the parts that make it up. However the universe is the name of a set and a set is not a member of itself. This does not necessarily rule out the set having the same properties as its components, but it does not conclusively prove it either. Besides the universe arose from a quantum state, in which there is a very different set of rules and properties regardless. (I think Unbeliever has an article about backwards causation in quantum mechanics.)
Flawed premise – There is no scientific theory, including the Big Bang, which says there was ever a time when there was nothing. This is simply a deliberate distortion by theists, if not a flat out lie. It may very well be impossible for there to be “nothing”. But even assuming this is possible then the laws of thermodynamics or principle of causality would not exist either. Non-being can’t prevent being either. Hah!
Bad analogies – There are several bad analogies in this argument. The first is that “begins to exist” is a meaningless ad hoc. We do not observe things coming into existence rather we only observe changes in states of matter and energy. There is no logical basis to make this assumption. Now if it were possible to observe things blipping into existence then the argument might have a leg to stand on, but then one might as well just assume that the same happened with the things that make up the universe. No intangible god required. The second is that proponents of the argument claim that the first cause must be personal in order to have willed everything into existence. Yet this is based on the analogy that humans sometimes act as personal causes to certain effects. Impersonal causes are much more common and therefore more probable. The third is that the causal agent is assumed to be intelligent, personal, or free willed. The only place where we can observe a will is in the human brain. The brain is a complex system of chemicals, which is subject to cause and effect. How can God have these qualities without a brain or endocrine glands?
Special Pleading – The argument resorts to this fallacy more than ever. First it is implied that existence requires a cause. However theists will argue that God is the only exception to the rule since he came first, and that he does not need a cause. Unless they can come up with other examples of things that exist without cause and then find a way to eliminate them without eliminating God, the category of uncaused things is meaningless and is just another way of saying “God”. Secondly the kalam argument is based on the reasoning that infinity does not exist in reality, only as a concept. It never actually manages to prove this mind you. However God is allowed to be infinite, which is a blatant contradiction. If not then God also began to exist, in which case the argument self-refutes. Third if simultaneous causation is assumed then there is no way to rule out the possibility that the universe created God. There is in fact good reason to think that it did, and not the other way around. Humans have invented hundreds of thousands of deities throughout their history, and this “god” certainly reads like any other primitive human construct.
Begging the Question – Again there are several instances where this fallacy shows up. This is supposed to be a proof for God’s existence, and if at any time God is part of the definition of any premise then the argument becomes circular. God is assumed to exist externally and uncaused, which is exactly what the argument is setting out to prove. This is no different from saying “everything except God is caused”. We have no evidence of extraneous extra-temporal entities because we are not exposed to them. How could we be? There is no logical basis to assume (or deduce) them. In order for any argument to remain logical we must work with what we know, not with what we are trying to prove. The universe is by definition the totality of existence, and time is a property of the universe. All actions require time to carry out. Any extraneous extra-temporal being would not be able to act on the universe without itself being a part of the universe.
Argument from incredulity – Proponents of the argument will try to refute the above by saying that a personal God is not “god of the gaps” but that he is deduced for the role of first cause from the premises. In other words they claim God is the only possible answer. Give me a break. This is the same as saying that the only way to fill a hole in the ground is to use concrete, when you could also plant a tree, fill it with water, or cover it back over with dirt. Just because the arguer is unable or unwilling to imagine anything else doesn’t mean they don’t exist or aren’t just as valid. Besides, as you have pointed out, an unknown cause is no different from a natural cause.
Illicit quantifier shift – The Aristotelian prime mover argument on which cosmological arguments are based commits this fallacy. It says that since every effect has a cause, it follows that there must be one cause ultimately responsible for every effect. Excuse me while I laugh. This is the logical equivalent of saying that everybody loves somebody; therefore there is somebody that everyone loves! (Though I’ll bet this isn’t God either.)
It gets funny if you assume the argument is true and then demonstrate what ELSE it could be used to prove. For example:
If it is possible for God to exist as an uncaused causal agent, then it should also be possible for other uncaused agents to exist. If the arguer were to stop at God then he would have to admit that the whole category of uncaused things exists only as it’s convenient to suit his arguments. What is there stopping a multitude, or even an infinite number of entities from existing uncaused? (I’ve said it before, monotheism certainly owes a lot to paganisms.)
What exactly is required of the first cause? The only thing the first cause had to do was set off the big bang and THAT’S IT. It could just as easily have been the tantrum of a cosmic baby as it was the will of an intelligent personal agent. If God can be made an exception simply by saying he is, then it ought to work on any other causal agent one can imagine. Perhaps the causal agent was a giant cosmic a** that farted to set off the big bang. Nothing in the argument says the first cause still has to exist, so maybe afterwards it was all pooped out.
Furthermore let’s assume that the causal agent does exist externally and uncaused. If it’s outside the universe then it certainly is not inside. If any part of it exists inside at all, then there is no reason to think that it is not a part of the universe itself. Any external agent would certainly not be any god worth concerning ourselves with. In other words it can’t be a worshipped entity, therefore it is not a god at all.
The thing is though, I wanted to hear what your thoughts were, not whether you agree with my refutal.
Very good, and I'd be PROUD to put this on my site!
Now, as a mental challenge... how can we dumb down some of these arguments? When I read skeptic arguments, half the time it sounds like they're writing a term paper for a philosophy professor or biology major. I would love to release something like: "Why God doesn't exist for Dummies."
Sometimes I go back to my old writings and try to simplify and shorten them because people really don't like to read more than a few paragraphs.
Maybe "The Cosmological argument debunked" by Elmo the Monster!
Anyway - I would certainly love to give you a page on my site. You seem to have quite a knack for writing and scholarly dissertation.
Just great. I just realized that when I copied this from microsoft word, all of the punctuation marks showed up as gibberish code.
Also I was more interested in hearing your take on kalam, not in having my bit put up on your site. Like I said, it's always changing and it borrows heavily from other people's writings. The jokes are my own though, as is the objection concerning polytheism. I'd be interested in hearing how monotheists respond to that one.
If you're going to put anything on your site, I'd like to see what you wrote yourself. Besides if people want to read this, they can just click on the forum link.
I wrote this off the top of my head. I used your 4 step explanation of Cosmo, assuming that it was a pretty public domain summary. You'll notice how dumbed down my explanations are and yet I still think they could be dumbed down some more. Your jokes are yours and very good. I hope I didn't accidentally copy anything of yours.
---------------------------------------------
The cosmological argument is among the weakest in the Christian arsenal. It is rife with logical fallacies, mistaken assumptions and contradictions that I could easily spend chapters on. Instead, I'll deal with it quickly and to the point.
The Cosmo argument claims:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore the universe has a cause. 4) God is the most likely cause of the universe.
Let's address these one at a time.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. What about Jehovah? Jehovah never had a cause but it exists! I find it hysterical that the core argument of the cosmo apologetic instantly refutes the existence of God! Let's continue... What kind of ridiculous, unsupportable statement are we dealing with? How is it possible to prove that EVERYTHING had a cause? This is like Masai tribesmen trying to explain an earthquake. "Well all other earth-shakings come from large, walking animals so a big shaking must come from a big animal." This is exactly the same thing; using our pathetic 21st century science and observation to try to make authoritative pronouncements about unique, quantum events that we know next to nothing about!
2) The Universe began to exist. In most models the universe begins to exist, but the model usually assumes that something was around previous to the universe. Perhaps Big Bang is a looping model, exploding and imploding over infinity. Maybe Big Bang (as superstring theorists believe) was the result of a brane collision. Few models say there was nothing before the universe yet even a model as simple as: "Nothing than Universe" is certainly no less logical than the Christian alternative.
3) Therefore the Universe has a Cause. I pretty much covered this under my first argument. It is the epitome of arrogance to make authoritative pronouncements of things we can neither observe nor duplicate. Infinitely unique events like the creation of a universe or the genesis of life cannot be analogized with paper airplanes and wristwatches.
4) God is the most likely cause of the universe.
There are SO MANY problems here that I'll need to address them one at a time:
a) The most obvious mistake is the ad hoc leap that if something cannot be explained than we can only assume that the ancient, heathen-killing god of the Hebrews MUST'VE done it. This is akin to stating that since we don't know what culture built the Sphinx - Leprechauns must've done it.
b) Which brings me to "Which god?" Here we see a mistake which continues to confuse the hell out of Christians: Christians have named their god, "God" which leads to serious confusion and side-stepping. Christians are constantly slipping between arguments involving Jehovah, the tribal mountain-god of the ancient Hebrew and a kind of nameless All-God of unknown properties.
i) Jehovah Christians fail to realize that proving design does not prove the existence of Jehovah anymore than it proves the existence of Ra, Odin, Zeus, Marduk or the Jade Emperor. None of these gods is a good alternative to current scientific theory. The Jehovah model would have the Earth made after the universe about 5,000 year ago, placed on a foundation that does not move with a dome to keep the water above the earth from the water below the earth. Jehovah's Bible is filled with contradictions, scientific inaccuracies, historical mistakes, godly savagery, mistaken prophecies, bad laws, mythologies and absurdities so it is clearly excused as a possible model for the beginning of the universe.
ii) All-God of Unknown Properties. No one cares if this creature exists. Honestly - a creature that creates the universe and moves on is seriously no different from a natural event. A Christian would spend his whole life worshiping some ancient Hebrew god and wind up in exactly the same shape as any atheist. This creature is actually NOT a god as it is not being worshiped, neither is it accepting prayers or sacrifices. A nameless non-god, creator would simply be a Big Bang with a brain and our lives are not impacted by whether it exists or not. It is seriously disingenous for Christians to try to prove the existence of an "All-god" when we all know that he is actually trying to prove the existence of Jehovah.
Summary: The Cosmo argument is just more bad logic; making baseless pronouncements and ad hoc leaps. Imagine a medieval clergyman saying "Blood MUST come from somewhere. Even though the body bleeds - it still has enough blood. We don't know why this is so we must believe in God."
Remember this... The "Nuh, uh... Magic did it!" argument is almost always a bad bet.
I have a couple more questions on the subject, concerning certain arguments theists often use to defend the cosmological argument.
I) The first is the idea that infinity cannot exist in objective reality, only as a concept. According to the logic behind kalam, if the sequence of temporal events is infinite, we never could have traversed it to arrive at the present. Yet we have reached this moment, therefore the series of events must have had a beginning. Earlier you commented that the cosmological argument doesn't actually prove that infinity cannot exist. Could you please elaborate on this?
Note that I have no problem with using the same logic to point out that an infinite god cannot exist, as shown above. I'm primarily interested in how you would refute this idea.
II) The second is the the idea that no effect can be greater than its cause. I usually try to refute this by pointing out that nature abounds with examples of small or simple causes leading up to greater more complex effects. Theists then accuse me of not taking all the causal factors into account. The only way I can think of to counter that argument is to keep going backwards along the causal chain of events until I find something that proves my point.
For example theists may say that evolution is a bad example because it is driven by the sun's energy, and the sun is a greater cause than its effect. I would probably then point out that the sun is composed of hydrogen, the smallest and simplest element around, and held together by gravity. At this point they would probably say that something had to cause the hydrogen into existence, by which they are assuming their conclusion and I can catch them making a circular argument.
So how would you respond to the argument that no effect can be greater than its cause? It seems very suspect to me.
Debunking Apologetics! › Anti-Apologetics › General Anti-Apologetics › Where's the cosmological argument?
Author
Where's the cosmological argument? (currently 87 views)
Logged
Administrator
