(September 5, 2014 at 7:42 am)Dawsonite Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the syllogism could be re-stated as follows:
1) It is reasonable to posit that everything that has a beginning has a cause, but there is no hard evidence of this;
2) The universe may have had beginning, but this is only one of several possibilities and depends on the definition of the word "beginning";
ergo
It is within the realm of possibility that the universe has a cause.
Is this accurate?
Perhaps, but I think it is a bit tedious. I consider Michael's syllogism both valid and sound based on our accumulated experience.
I think the broader argument jumps over a cliff when people then start describing the cause; whether it's God, other creation myths, a multiverse, previous universe contraction, quantum fluctuation, et al. It's all speculation with no corroborating evidence.
Another problem I have with the broader cosmological argument has to do with the invocation of an uncaused cause to overcome the uncomfortable idea of an infinite causal chain. I don't take issue with the idea of an uncaused cause, because I am one of those uncomfortable with an infinite causal chain. What I don't find reasonable about the uncaused cause in the cosmological argument is the arbitrary insertion of it as a cause for our universe. With no evidence it could just as easily be inserted 100, 1000, 10000000000000000000, or more causes back. Regardless of where it resides in the chain, there is absolutely no way to characterize its nature.
The above is why I don't take any issue with a deistic position. I disagree since I am comfortable suspending judgement regarding the mystery, but it becomes a very trivial point since we can then discuss what it is that goes on in our universe without supernatural interference. It also unveils the biggest problem for theists that are descriptive about the nature of their god; there is no way to get from a god produced via the cosmological argument (if granted) to the character(s) in the Bible.
