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?

I can't see any class with free will myself (whether it does or does not exist). Could you perhaps talk a little more of the difficulty you see?

WLC view of free will is a complex one, being a Molinist. But I don't think that impinges on the Cosmological argument.

(September 2, 2014 at 8:03 am)Michael Wrote: I can't see any class with free will myself (whether it does or does not exist). Could you perhaps talk a little more of the difficulty you see?

WLC view of free will is a complex one, being a Molinist. But I don't think that impinges on the Cosmological argument.

Basically, as I see it, people like WLC appear to be essentially saying that the beginning of the Universe could not have been an uncaused, spontaneous event, yet actions are? I suppose they might reply that the soul plays the role of God, the process of decision-making operating almost ex niliho?

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).

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.

(September 2, 2014 at 9:37 am)Diablo Wrote: 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.

Yes, I think it's always important to remember these arguments don't provide certainties. They simply proceed from 'reasonable' (but uncertain) premises to conclusions. I don't know anyone personally who has come to faith through philosophical arguments. I'm sure there are some somewhere, but I think it's pretty rare. I see these arguments more as showing that belief in God (or, in this case, an uncaused cause, or an unmoved mover) is not unreasonable. So stating that the universe had a beginning is a reasonable premise; it is in line with what data we do have and some philosophers also highlight problems with infinite regresses. But it's not certain, no.

(September 2, 2014 at 9:52 am)Michael Wrote:

(September 2, 2014 at 9:37 am)Diablo Wrote: 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.

Yes, I think it's always important to remember these arguments don't provide certainties. They simply proceed from 'reasonable' (but uncertain) premises to conclusions. I don't know anyone personally who has come to faith through philosophical arguments. I'm sure there are some somewhere, but I think it's pretty rare. I see these arguments more as showing that belief in God (or, in this case, an uncaused cause, or an unmoved mover) is not unreasonable. So stating that the universe had a beginning is a reasonable premise; it is in line with what data we do have and some philosophers also highlight problems with infinite regresses. But it's not certain, no.

As I said, it is line with some but not all data and is doubted by some scientists. So the premise in the OP fails - it didn't say anything about being reasonable.

In normal analytical thought, a premise would fail if it was shown to be false or unreasonable. If we declared everything about which we are not certain a 'fail', then pretty much every scholarly adventure (including science) is going to pretty much collapse.

But I'm interested: what data is contrary to the idea that the universe had a beginning? My knowledge is perhaps a little out of date. I heard Sir Roger Penrose talk of the possibility of a cycling universe (maximum entropy creating a new singularity which triggers a new universe) a few years back, but back then he said there was no data to support such a view but he had a few ideas of what might be measure. But you say that not all data is in line with the universe having a beginning, so it sounds like something might have changed?

(September 2, 2014 at 10:41 am)Michael Wrote: In normal analytical thought, a premise would fail if it was shown to be false or unreasonable. If we declared everything about which we are not certain a 'fail', then pretty much every scholarly adventure (including science) is going to pretty much collapse.

But I'm interested: what data is contrary to the idea that the universe had a beginning? My knowledge is perhaps a little out of date. I heard Sir Roger Penrose talk of the possibility of a cycling universe (maximum entropy creating a new singularity which triggers a new universe) a few years back, but back then he said there was no data to support such a view but he had a few ideas of what might be measure. But you say that not all data is in line with the universe having a beginning, so it sounds like something might have changed?

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

It's important to realise that projecting back, we find not a point but a singularity. The maths breaks down there so we don't know what happens. The big bang may have come from a beginning event or from the collapse of a previous universe.

Yes, I am aware that there are models of cyclical universes that will fit the data we have. I was more interested when you said that there was *data* that was actually incompatible with a universe that had a beginning. I wondered what, and how strong, that was.