The Cosmological Argument and Free Will

[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.