The Cosmological Argument and Free Will

[genkaus]

'How' is irrelevant to the argument. Seeking to answer the question of what X caused Y is different than seeking to answer how X caused Y. These two questions can be answered independently of one another. The cosmological argument does not address the 'how', nor does it need to.

'How' isn't irrelevant, it is the whole point of inquiry. You can't go into how X caused Y without establishing that X caused Y, therefore, they are not independent. If your cosmological argument claims to have explanatory power then it should both establish that X caused Y and explain how X caused Y. As it stands, it does neither.

My proposition: If something exists it either began or always has existed.

Your propositions:
1. If something exists is was caused by a material cause, or
(it began)
2. If something exists it came into existence without a cause, or
(it began)
3. If something exists it has always existed, or
(it always existed)
4. If something exists the spatio-temporal concept of beginning doesn't apply to it.
(Given the universe includes time, space, and matter, the spatio-temporal concept of beginning does apply to it. It [the concept] would not apply before the universe.)

No false dichotomy.

You coalesced two distinct propositions into one and ignored the last one altogether so that you could simplistically have just two options where actually there are more. By definition, it is a false dichotomy.

It is 'proven' in the assertion that 'the universe began to exist with a material cause' leads to an infinite regress.

Nothing can be proven by an assertion.

If material caused the universe into existence, then what caused that material? If it was caused then it is not an uncaused first cause, and you're on your way to the infinite regress. If nothing caused it, then the material must be eternal. If material caused the universe into existence, the only logical conclusion is that the material is eternal.

Again, false dichotomy. There are a multitude of other options.
1. The material cause of the universe is uncaused, which makes it first cause.
2. Something else caused the material cause, which is the first cause, making it the second cause.
3. The actual first cause exists one level above, making it Third Cause.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57. The actual first cause exists one level above, making it 57th cause.
.. and so on.

As far as the Cosmological argument is concerned, all of these propositions are possible. Not to mention that the material cause hasn't been established in the first place.

If you accept the premises: Everything that has a beginning has a cause and the universe has a beginning, then the causality principle would be applicable. To show the causality principle not applicable you would need to show either of these premises untrue.

I don't accept those premises and since I am not making any assertions, I don't need to show anything. Since you don't know everything, you cannot assume that causality principle applies to everything and you haven't established that the concept of beginning is even applicable to the universe.

If what caused the universe is material which transformed into the universe, then what caused the material which was transformed into the universe? It's an infinite regress. You're back to choosing either an uncaused first cause, or eternal material.

Infinite regress? Hardly. We are just going one step back. First you need to establish the material cause of the universe - then we can ask about its cause and whether such a thing is applicable.

If there is a first cause, then by definition this is where the causality principle stops.

Tautology is not a persuasive argument. You still have to prove the "If there is a first cause" refers to the cause you posited.