The Cosmological Argument and Free Will

[suneel]

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?

Does anyone else find an inconsistency here or am I missing something?

Is this the point in which the soul is injected as the Unmoved Mover? Does this still not require indeterminate, spontaneous generation of action, and if not, what causal relation does "soul" have to said action?

If we simply say, "It's a mystery," then what good is intellectualism? The furthest it can possibly attain amounts to far greater fuzziness than that of perceptual reality which it so fervently claims to disdain?

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

Well then what caused god?

[Mudhammam]

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

Well then what caused god?

I think your question is why must a regress of causes require any one link in the chain to be self-sufficient and uncaused rather than the chain as a whole to be self-sufficient, in which case it would be assumed to continue infinitely into the past? Good question for an ambitious theist.

[Madness20]

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

Well then what caused god?

The argument in itself has nothing to do with god, it just states that the universe has a cause by "logical" arguments.

But on your question "what caused god?" , it's actually not a good question, as "god" defined by the majority is the eternal being of the universe, was not caused and did not have a begin.

On the topic, I believe that the cosmological argument is sustaining in determinism, and in the idea of cause effect, which in itself is contraditory with free-will, as determinism in general believes everything is "determined".

[orangebox21]

On the topic, I believe that the cosmological argument is sustaining in determinism, and in the idea of cause effect, which in itself is contraditory with free-will, as determinism in general believes everything is "determined".

If naturalism is true, then your above assertion would be true as well.

If naturalism is true, and thus determinism, then [within the context of this argument] the 'beginning of the universe' is in fact not the 'beginning' because the cause of the beginning of the universe would be an effect of a previous cause.

This would go on and on into infinite regress and the question would still remain, what is the first uncaused cause? This is a question unanswerable by determinism.

[As a note it is because of a naturalistic or deterministic perspective that I think the atheist often asks, 'what created God?' It's a question that flows naturally views these views.]

[Mudhammam]

If naturalism is true, and thus determinism, then [within the context of this argument] the 'beginning of the universe' is in fact not the 'beginning' because the cause of the beginning of the universe would be an effect of a previous cause.

Correct. Material antecedents would mean that the big bang is not the absolute beginning of the Universe, though it may still be taken as a discontinuity so radical that we cannot explain it, because we can find no laws which we can extrapolate backwards through this discontinuity.

This would go on and on into infinite regress and the question would still remain, what is the first uncaused cause? This is a question unanswerable by determinism.

This is not even a logically sound question. It's like asking, "Can an omnipotent god create beings more powerful than her?" A "first" cause already presumes that you're talking about a finite starting point in time.

[Whateverist]

Excuse me but has anyone shown that it is even possible that anything can always have existed which could then serve as a first cause?

Pointing out the trouble for our concept of cause and effect if no such being existed is far from showing that such a being could exist. It may just be that our concept is incomplete or flawed.

[orangebox21]

If naturalism is true, and thus determinism, then [within the context of this argument] the 'beginning of the universe' is in fact not the 'beginning' because the cause of the beginning of the universe would be an effect of a previous cause.

Correct. Material antecedents would mean that the big bang is not the absolute beginning of the Universe, though it may still be taken as a discontinuity so radical that we cannot explain it, because we can find no laws which we can extrapolate backwards through this discontinuity.

This would go on and on into infinite regress and the question would still remain, what is the first uncaused cause? This is a question unanswerable by determinism.

This is not even a logically sound question. It's like asking, "Can an omnipotent god create beings more powerful than her?" A "first" cause already presumes that you're talking about a finite starting point in time.

It is then an issue of explanatory power. Within the context of our conversation, determinism and naturalism offer no explanation for the beginning of the universe.

An eternal being fits the criteria of an 'uncaused first cause' and does have explanatory power.

Excuse me but has anyone shown that it is even possible that anything can always have existed which could then serve as a first cause?

If something exists it either began or always has existed.
The universe exists
Therefore the universe either began or always has existed.

If the universe has always existed then it must be shown to be.

If the universe began, and if we accept the causality principle then: the best explanation to the cause of the universe is an uncaused first cause. In other words, the existence of the universe makes the existence of an 'uncaused first cause' possible. This is what the cosmological argument asserts.

Pointing out the trouble for our concept of cause and effect if no such being existed is far from showing that such a being could exist. It may just be that our concept is incomplete or flawed.

Would you accept the argument: Of course God exists, if He cannot be proven to exist it's only because our concept of Him is incomplete or flawed?

[genkaus]

An eternal being fits the criteria of an 'uncaused first cause' and does have explanatory power.

It doesn't explain how he did it - therefore, no explanatory power.

If something exists it either began or always has existed.

False dichotomy - the correct proposition would be: If something exists it either came into existence from some material cause (like a statue from clay) or it came into existence without any cause or it always existed or the spatio-temporal concept of beginning doesn't apply to it.

The universe exists
Therefore the universe either began or always has existed.

See above for your fault.

If the universe has always existed then it must be shown to be.

And if you argue that it began to exist without a material cause, you must prove it as well.

If the universe began, and if we accept the causality principle

Hang on - why would you assume that the causality principle is applicable to the beginning of the universe?

then: the best explanation to the cause of the universe is an uncaused first cause.

Given the multiple failures of assumptions, that's not the best explanation.

But, being extremely generous and granting your baseless assertions - all we can say about the cause of the universe is that it is the material which transformed into the universe. You can't call it the "first cause" without proving that that is where the causality principle stops. And you certainly cannot assert any intelligence there.

In other words, the existence of the universe makes the existence of an 'uncaused first cause' possible. This is what the cosmological argument asserts.

And all the flaws show why that assertion is bullshit.

[Mudhammam]

If the universe began, and if we accept the causality principle then: the best explanation to the cause of the universe is an uncaused first cause.

And

then it must be shown to be

You nailed it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Excuse me but has anyone shown that it is even possible that anything can always have existed which could then serve as a first cause?

I thing the argument of Parmenides with respect to being and non-being works, but only if applied to the totality of existence. The argument is as follows.

Given: being changes.
The only thing into which being can change is non-being.
Non-being does not exist.
Therefore: being does not change.

What I see in this is a compelling deduction of a single and immutable ground of being.