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.

[Mudhammam]

As whateverist has pointed out, why does orangebox keep demanding that his premises demand a first cause as if we're talking about a singular object? In reality, what "effects" have only "ONE cause"?

[orangebox21]

'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.

Good point. I'll rephrase. The question of whether or not the universe had a cause is answerable independently of what the cause was and how the cause worked. The question of what or how the universe was caused into existence would be dependent upon answering the question of whether or not the universe has a cause.

And again, the cosmological argument is an argument that seeks to answer the question: Does the universe have a cause? Within the context of the argument, the 'how' is irrelevant. If it is established that the universe does have a cause, then the 'how' and the specific 'what' do become relevant.

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.

If these are the answers you are seeking then you already agree with the premise that the universe had a cause and should be asking questions like: What could cause the universe into existence? How did the 'what' cause the universe into existence?

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.

I agree that ' If something exists is was caused by a material cause' and ' If something exists it came into existence without a cause' are two distinct propositions. They are both propositions that assert the universe had a beginning. They simply differentiate what the beginning was. If I assert that the universe either began or always existed, offering different specific causes of the universe's beginning is not a 'third option' showing my assertion is a false dichotomy. If something exists and was caused by a material cause it had a beginning. If something came into existence without a cause, it had a beginning. These are the same 'choice,' namely that the universe had a beginning.

I did not ignore you're fourth option. I gave reasons why it doesn't apply. You are making the knowledge claim that the assertion 'If something exists the spatio-temporal concept of beginning doesn't apply to it.' You are doing so as a third option to my asserted disjunction and are then concluding that my disjunction is a false dichotomy. You are therefore required to support your assertion.

Nothing can be proven by an assertion.

That would then include the assertion: "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.

To address #1. If the material cause of the universe is uncaused, then it would be an eternal material.

To address #2-57. All of these options choose an uncaused first cause.

You seem to have an error in your thinking relating to categorical statements. Whether we regress 10 causes to the uncaused first cause or we regress 5 causes to the uncaused first cause we have still chosen the uncaused first cause option. Therefore you have not shown a third option to prove a false dichotomy.

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.

Addressed 2 responses below.

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.

Addressed in above responses.

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.

The observation of the expansion of the universe, and the second law of thermodynamics have persuaded me that the universe cannot be eternal. Therefore it must have been caused. If the universe was caused, by definition the causality principle is applicable.

As whateverist has pointed out, why does orangebox keep demanding that his premises demand a first cause as if we're talking about a singular object? In reality, what "effects" have only "ONE cause"?

It's quite possible that the 'uncaused first cause' is a plurality, like a group of eternal beings for example. The cosmological argument seeks to establish that the universe has a cause. Who, what, or how many are qualifiers of the first cause and are therefore outside the scope of the cosmological argument.....

If the universe has a beginning then it has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

[Little lunch]

Why are you people consistingly trying to hurt my brain?

[genkaus]

Good point. I'll rephrase. The question of whether or not the universe had a cause is answerable independently of what the cause was and how the cause worked. The question of what or how the universe was caused into existence would be dependent upon answering the question of whether or not the universe has a cause.

And again, the cosmological argument is an argument that seeks to answer the question: Does the universe have a cause? Within the context of the argument, the 'how' is irrelevant. If it is established that the universe does have a cause, then the 'how' and the specific 'what' do become relevant.

Try to remember that. The only thing your cosmological argument can hope to establish is that the universe had a cause. It cannot establish what that cause was or anything else about the nature of the cause.

If these are the answers you are seeking then you already agree with the premise that the universe had a cause and should be asking questions like: What could cause the universe into existence? How did the 'what' cause the universe into existence?

No, I said that your argument fails to establish that anything caused the universe - that does not imply any acceptance of the premise that the universe had a cause. If I say that your argument fails to establish that a person is guilty of murder, that does not imply that I accept the premise that a murder was committed.

I agree that ' If something exists is was caused by a material cause' and ' If something exists it came into existence without a cause' are two distinct propositions. They are both propositions that assert the universe had a beginning. They simply differentiate what the beginning was. If I assert that the universe either began or always existed, offering different specific causes of the universe's beginning is not a 'third option' showing my assertion is a false dichotomy. If something exists and was caused by a material cause it had a beginning. If something came into existence without a cause, it had a beginning. These are the same 'choice,' namely that the universe had a beginning.

Except one of those 'choices' contradicts the second premise of your argument - "Everything that has a beginning has a cause". Given this third premise, you are clearly ignoring one of the distinct propositions (otherwise you wouldn't be able to assert that) making it a false dichotomy.

I did not ignore you're fourth option. I gave reasons why it doesn't apply. You are making the knowledge claim that the assertion 'If something exists the spatio-temporal concept of beginning doesn't apply to it.' You are doing so as a third option to my asserted disjunction and are then concluding that my disjunction is a false dichotomy. You are therefore required to support your assertion.

I thought it was obvious - beginning is a spatio-temporal concept. It asks when and where. If something exists that is independent of space and time, then the idea of beginning cannot apply to it. The only counter to this would be that nothing exists independent of space and time - but you can't really argue that, can you?

That would then include the assertion: "nothing can be proven by an assertion."

Who said it was an assertion?

To address #1. If the material cause of the universe is uncaused, then it would be an eternal material.

To address #2-57. All of these options choose an uncaused first cause.

You seem to have an error in your thinking relating to categorical statements. Whether we regress 10 causes to the uncaused first cause or we regress 5 causes to the uncaused first cause we have still chosen the uncaused first cause option. Therefore you have not shown a third option to prove a false dichotomy.

Those were not the options you presented: If you'd said "either there is an uncaused first cause or there is infinite regress", then your argument would have some merit. But your argument was that "either universe has an uncaused first cause or there is infinite regress" - giving a specific placement for that first cause which is a false dichotomy.

The observation of the expansion of the universe, and the second law of thermodynamics have persuaded me that the universe cannot be eternal. Therefore it must have been caused. If the universe was caused, by definition the causality principle is applicable.

That would be an invalid conclusion. What you can conclude, if that, is that the universe as is exists not cannot be eternal. It says nothing about the state of the universe in another form. Further, concluding from "it cannot be eternal" that "it must have a cause" presumes the the applicability of the causality principle - another invalid conclusion. To then use this to prove its applicability is circular reasoning.

If the universe has a beginning then it has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

As the argument stands:

If the universe has a beginning then it has a cause - wrong, the applicability of causality principle has not been established.
The universe has a beginning - wrong, the applicability of the spatio-temporal concept of beginning has not been established.
Therefore the universe has a cause - invalid conclusion.