The Cosmological Argument and Free Will

[Diablo]

Yes, I am aware that there are models of cyclical universes. I was more interested when you said that there was *data* that was incompatible with a universe that had a beginning. I haven't heard someone say that before, so I was wondering what that data was?

Yes, I mis-stated that. I should have said that the data does not preclude either possibility. Thanks for pointing that out.

My point is still valid: the premise in the OP is wrong.

[Simon Moon]

One of the most commonly used arguments for establishing the existence of God, as many of you know, states:

1. Anything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. The Universe had a cause.

A glaring peculiarity stands out, however, when philosophers such as William Lane Craig peddle this line of reasoning in one breath and yet affirm the existence of indeterminate free will in another.

Are human actions free or determined? Many will reply 'free,' which is to basically proclaim that some events do indeed have a beginning and lack a cause. Well then, on what leg does the Cosmological argument stand? Which is it?

I'm not sure I see a contradiction between the CA and free will.

But the Cosmological argument has several other, more obvious fallacies that invalidate it anyways.

No need to look any further than the fallacy of composition or fallacy of equivocation.

[Drich]

we are not free to use our will. We are told in scripture we are the oppsite, in that we are slaves to sin. Meaning we are predisposed to sin. If you think this is not true the try and stop sinning. That said we do have a will given to us to make various choices, but all within the confines of sin. Except that of the acceptance of redemption.

[Michael]

Yes, I am aware that there are models of cyclical universes. I was more interested when you said that there was *data* that was incompatible with a universe that had a beginning. I haven't heard someone say that before, so I was wondering what that data was?

Yes, I mis-stated that. I should have said that the data does not preclude either possibility. Thanks for pointing that out.

My point is still valid: the premise in the OP is wrong.

Thanks. OK.

But don't you think 'uncertain' is different from 'wrong'?

[Diablo]

Yes, I mis-stated that. I should have said that the data does not preclude either possibility. Thanks for pointing that out.

My point is still valid: the premise in the OP is wrong.

Thanks. OK.

But don't you think 'uncertain' is different from 'wrong'?

No I don't. It is wrong to say that the universe has a beginning because we don't know if that is true.

[Michael]

Thanks. OK.

But don't you think 'uncertain' is different from 'wrong'?

No I don't. It is wrong to say that the universe has a beginning because we don't know if that is true.

Oh well, I'll have to disagree there. I think often in science (and, in this case, philosophy) we work with uncertainty, and just bear that in mind when we reach a conclusion. In medical research, for example, we work with samples of patients. We can't be certain that the general population will respond in the same way as our sample did (indeed we can be pretty sure that the general population won't respond in exactly the same way because trials tend to be quite picky about the patients used). We know we're dealing with uncertainties, but the alternative would only be to approve a drug once it had been tested on everyone who would ever receive it, and that's clearly impossible. Uncertainty and imprecision are both warp and weft through all biological science but we get on with it anyway.

A lot of statisticians would be out of a job if we only worked with what we are certain about. Ooh, a life without statisticians! I'm beginning to see a benefit of your approach ;-) After all, they are generally just people who wanted to do accountancy but couldn't take the excitement.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To my understanding, the cosmological argument, as presented by WLC, does not indicate the kind of cause: final, formal, material, or efficient. Likewise, the idea of something beginning must address why things persist in their being and yet remain subject to change. As for me, I find the concept of an unmoved mover firmly established within Neo-Scholastic philosophy.

[Diablo]

No I don't. It is wrong to say that the universe has a beginning because we don't know if that is true.

Oh well, I'll have to disagree there. I think often in science (and, in this case, philosophy) we work with uncertainty, and just bear that in mind when we reach a conclusion. In medical research, for example, we work with samples of patients. We can't be certain that the general population will respond in the same way as our sample did (indeed we can be pretty sure that the general population won't respond in exactly the same way because trials tend to be quite picky about the patients used). We know we're dealing with uncertainties, but the alternative would only be to approve a drug once it had been tested on everyone who would ever receive it, and that's clearly impossible. Uncertainty and imprecision are both warp and weft through all biological science but we get on with it anyway.

A lot of statisticians would be out of a job if we only worked with what we are certain about. Ooh, a life without statisticians! I'm beginning to see a benefit of your approach ;-) After all, they are generally just people who wanted to do accountancy but couldn't take the excitement.

We'll have to agree to disagree in this case. I'm sure you really understand it because what you've said highlights the fact that the statement is absolute when no such certainty exists. You may say that God exists on the same basis, without proof of that assertion, and I wonder where your faith would be if you had to visit the bookmakers to find out the odds. They'd be pretty long ones, I should think. If you want to introduce statisticians into the argument then I'm all for it: it just reinforces the point.

And leave accountants out of it; without them most enterprises would go bust.

[Mudhammam]

Oh, I see.

No, I don't think WLC would say actions are un-caused. I haven't heard or read him say such a thing anyway. But I think whenever a conversation gets on to 'free will' I want to say "free from what?" as I don't think anyone believes wills are totally free (e.g. from genetic or environmental factors).

True, but one Q, which you may or may not be able to clarify for me: If WLC and other libertarian free-willists allow that actions are caused (determined), what is the debate? Is it merely that determinists argue that actions are only determined by genetic and environmental factors whereas free-willists have a third causal element, the mysterious soul stuff? That seems to change the dynamic of the controversy, as that still concedes determination of action, whether a person "blames" their genes or their environment or some mysterious "other thing" (all of which can still fall under the domain of the "self").

There is no certainly that the universe had a beginning. It may be that the universe we perceive is the latest in a series of iterations, each one collapsing and 'bouncing' to cause the next.

While there is of course no certainty in science, doesn't the current Big Bang model theorize that all space-time and matter-energy had a beginning? If we're still holding out that this was merely an "event horizon," how can we, based on the current evidence, call this broader dimension a "material" Universe?

To my understanding, the cosmological argument, as presented by WLC, does not indicate the kind of cause: final, formal, material, or efficient. Likewise, the idea of something beginning must address why things persist in their being and yet remain subject to change. As for me, I find the concept of an unmoved mover firmly established within Neo-Scholastic philosophy.

I see. What would be your guess as to the kind of cause WLC libertarian free-willists would ascribe to the Universe and that to free will which allows the former to be determined while the latter not?

[Diablo]

@Pickup, I already posted a link to the big bounce.