Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

- If things can happen without causes, then we have no need of a creator god.  "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." 

It's better, because it passes William of Ockham's doctrine of least causes. A universe uncreated by god has less explaining to do than a one created by god (that's assuming that in all other ways both possibilities are equally likely, which is preposterous given our knowledge of the world).

Occam's razor does not apply unless you know the explanation of the universe. What "knowledge of the world" supports a universe without a beginning? Don't be sucked in by vague phrases like "asking what was before makes no sense because there was not time". Again, that is a metaphysical statement being made--not a scientific statement.

[Jehanne]

What question do you want to ask of me?  As for Craig, no, he has not studied physics, and he should not be treated as an authority on cosmology.

You seem to think WLC is disagreeing with Carroll/Hawkings on cosmological theories. He is not--actually why bother, they all admit shortcomings in their theories and they all know that they do not have it right yet. He is pointing out that whatever theory you want to espouse, there is a beginning/front edge/boundary/whatever you want to call it to the universe. Where a cosmologist oversteps is when they move past the boundary and declare that we don't have to discuss "before" because there was no before because time did not exist. This is clearly metaphysics and not science. 

Cosmologists disagree with you and Craig.

[Faith No More]

You are not understanding the argument. 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

In order to avoid an infinite regress, that explanation must be uncaused. This is inductive reasoning. Either argue that the universe is eternal and exist necessarily or that causal principles do not apply. Your conclusion "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." is not an answer. If you do not have successful defeaters for these, you can inductively reason an inmaterial uncaused cause with enough power to create something from nothing.

The cause and effect principle being leveraged here is a temporal principle. Each cause must precede its effect in time, which means that the principle cannot confidently be applied outside of time. So, as we trace the universe back to the singularity and we reach the point where t=0, the cause and effect principle no longer applies. In fact, our entire understanding of the laws of physics breaks down at this point, so attempting to use the cause and effect principle to explain it is completely unjustified and nonsensical.

[wiploc]

- If things can happen without causes, then we have no need of a creator god.  "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." 

- Since you claim your creator god is eternal, you are not avoiding "a past infinite regression absurdity."

- There is no sense of "begin" for which your god didn't begin but the rest of the universe did.  Therefore--even according to your own logic--if the rest of the universe needs a cause, so does your god.

You are not understanding the argument. 

I can't tell if you're trying to give offense here.  I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this kind of thing doesn't help.  

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

I understand this part.  I don't see anything about it not to understand.  Three points, though:

- I have no reason to believe it is true.
 
- I believe it is contrary to the current scientific consensus

- It seems to me arbitrary and self-serving, as if the worshipper of, say, a blue devil, proclaimed that everything that isn't blue has a cause.   

We can still look at whether your argument is valid, but it already doesn't seem to be sound.

2. The universe began to exist.

- I'm not sure this is true.  Asimov said the universe began at the big bang, but then he immediately hedged, saying something like, "At least we can call it the beginning, since we don't know what happened before that."  Hawking made the same move in A Brief History of Time.  

But I keep reading this claim, made by Christians, as if the beginning of the big bang was literally the beginning of all.  They often talk as if this issue were scientifically settled.  They often talk as if doubting them on this is unscientific.  But they are often the same people who say that begun things have to have causes, so I have to wonder if they don't support science only when they think it supports them.  Often enough they'll say first that nothing comes from nothing, and then turn around and say that Jehovah created the universe from nothing.  

So I went on campus and found a cosmologist and put the question to him.  He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.  Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.  Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."  

Bertrand Russell said something like this:  "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion; when the experts are not agreed, the layman does well not to hold any opinion at all."  

So here's my opinion as to whether the beginning of the big bang was the ultimate beginning:  I don't know.  

I'm not aware of a scientific consensus on the matter, and I don't have the expertise that would warrant me having my own opinion.

-

I have some concern about equivocation on the word "universe."  To me, this usually means everything that exists.  So, if a god exists, it is part of the universe.  So I don't see how a god could create the universe.  That would mean, among other things, creating itself.  

But if we only mean some things, rather than all things -- for clarity, we can call it a partaverse as opposed to the allaverse -- then I don't see what this premise gets you. 

"P2: Some things had a beginning."  Yes, I'm happy to agree with that, but I don't think you can build a first cause argument on that foundation.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

If we're talking about the partaverse, not including, say, gods, then, yes your argument is valid.  But all you've proven is that some stuff had causes.  Big whoop.  

Or, if we're talking about the allaverse, and we haven't equivocated (that is, if we were also talking about the allaverse in P2) then the argument is valid, but it "proves" that your god had a cause.

And, if "universe" refers to a partaverse in P2 but refers to the allaverse in the conclusion, then the argument is not valid.  

-

If we're just talking about the partaverse, I don't know why we're talking at all.  The intent of the first cause argument, as I understand it, is to establish the ultimate cause of everything.  

If we're talking about the allaverse, then your god (if it exists) is also caused, and that entirely defeats your claim to have established an uncaused cause.  

In order to avoid an infinite regress, that explanation must be uncaused.

Maybe it's okay to conflate causes and explanations; I don't have an opinion on that.  Is an uncaused explanation the same as an unexplained explanation and an uncaused cause?  Here you really do have an issue that I don't understand.  I can't even guess whether your point is linguistic or philosophical.  

In any case, maybe you're right.  Maybe it's true that our choice is either an uncaused first cause or an infinite regress.  (Hawking's "finite but unbounded" imaginary time gives me pause, but I'm happy to stipulate this dichotomy for the sake of argument.)  

In that case, I don't see why you think an infinite regress is less plausible than an uncaused cause.  If I were to say, "In order to avoid an uncaused cause, that explanation must be an infinite regress," I would be making a mere  assumption.  

This is inductive reasoning.

So is "In order to avoid an uncaused cause, that explanation must be an infinite regress."

Either argue that the universe is eternal and exist necessarily or that causal principles do not apply.

You made an argument that doesn't stand up to inspection.  That doesn't put the burden of proof on me to prove that you're wrong.  I need only show why your argument is not persuasive.  

It is not my opinion that the universe is eternal and necessary.  It is not my opinion that causal principles do not apply.  (Though I do follow science enough to suspect that (P1) very tiny things lack causes, and (P2) the beginning of the big bang was very tiny.)  

It is my opinion that:
- You haven't shown that uncaused causes are more plausible than infinite regresses.
- You haven't shown that a begun universe can have an unbegun god (or an unbegun anything).  
- Your first cause argument
-- is not apparently sound,
-- is not valid (if it equivocates), or
-- "proves" that god began and must have a cause (if it doesn't equivocate and is about the allaverse), or
-- "proves" only that some things begin (if it doesn't equivocate and is about the partaverse).  
- If Jehovah created the allaverse, then I don't see how causal principles can apply.  

Your conclusion "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." is not an answer.

No, it doesn't answer anything.  It just illustrates that calling infinite regresses "absurd" isn't proof that they don't exist.  If you have such a proof, I want to see it.  

If you do not have successful defeaters for these, you can inductively reason an inmaterial uncaused cause with enough power to create something from nothing.

Not so.  

I demur on all points, but I'll discuss one of them:  You seem to posit a pre-time situation in which only a being of immense power could create a universe.  But you aren't the ruler of this place; you don't get to arbitrarily declare the attributes of the unknown pre-time situation.  Perhaps only weak things can do creations there?  We don't know.  We have no reason to believe the situation is even real, and we certainly have no reason to think you get to make up rules for how it works.  

Of coursethe universe is huge.  Maybe you think it takes a hugely powerful cause to produce such a huge effect.  But does that follow? 

The Archduke Ferdinand's driver caused the nuclear annihilation of Nagasaki.  That was a huge effect.  Do we believe, therefore, that the driver must have been an immensely powerful man?  No, we simply don't.  

When we talk about the butterfly effect, a butterfly in, say, China causing a hurricane in the Atlantic, are we positing a race of immensely powerful butterflies?  We are not.  

Rather, we are saying that, in some circumstances, the most trifling input can have a remarkably huge result.  And you can't rule that out in your imaginary pre-time situation.  We don't know whether creation in pre-time situations takes power, or whether things there are immaterial, or whether any of your other preferred attributes obtain.  We don't even know whether pre-time situations are more absurd than infinite regresses.

[SteveII]

You are not understanding the argument. 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

In order to avoid an infinite regress, that explanation must be uncaused. This is inductive reasoning. Either argue that the universe is eternal and exist necessarily or that causal principles do not apply. Your conclusion "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." is not an answer. If you do not have successful defeaters for these, you can inductively reason an inmaterial uncaused cause with enough power to create something from nothing.

The cause and effect principle being leveraged here is a temporal principle.  Each cause must precede its effect in time, which means that the principle cannot confidently be applied outside of time.  So, as we trace the universe back to the singularity and we reach the point where t=0, the cause and effect principle no longer applies.  In fact, our entire understanding of the laws of physics breaks down at this point, so attempting to use the cause and effect principle to explain it is completely unjustified and nonsensical.

You have no reason to think that whatsoever. Don't confuse metaphysics with physics.

[Pat Mustard]

The cause and effect principle being leveraged here is a temporal principle.  Each cause must precede its effect in time, which means that the principle cannot confidently be applied outside of time.  So, as we trace the universe back to the singularity and we reach the point where t=0, the cause and effect principle no longer applies.  In fact, our entire understanding of the laws of physics breaks down at this point, so attempting to use the cause and effect principle to explain it is completely unjustified and nonsensical.

You have no reason to think that whatsoever. Don't confuse metaphysics with physics.

Be much better for you to stop confusing mythology with reality, rather than trying to correct others on subjects you know nothing about.

[SteveII]

I understand this part.  I don't see anything about it not to understand.  Three points, though:

A- I have no reason to believe it is true.
 
B- I believe it is contrary to the current scientific consensus

C- It seems to me arbitrary and self-serving, as if the worshipper of, say, a blue devil, proclaimed that everything that isn't blue has a cause.   

We can still look at whether your argument is valid, but it already doesn't seem to be sound.

A. 
1. Something does not come from nothing. 
2. If something can come from nothing, how come we do not see that happening now? Since nothing has no properties, there cannot be any difference between nothing before the universe and nothing now. Our physical laws cannot constrain nothing--because there is nothing to constrain.
3. All of our experiences are 100% in support of this statement. science is based on it. You would have to present a pretty good reason why we should ignore our experience and intuition when it becomes inconvenient for your theory.
B. How can there be a consensus when we don't understand enough about quantum mechanics and can't come up with a unified theory of gravity? Since none of them can be correct, which theory do you want to say indicates that things can exist uncaused? 
C. I would say that we have a strong warrant to believing premise 1 is true (see A and B)

[SteveII]

- I'm not sure this is true.  Asimov said the universe began at the big bang, but then he immediately hedged, saying something like, "At least we can call it the beginning, since we don't know what happened before that."  Hawking made the same move in A Brief History of Time.  

But I keep reading this claim, made by Christians, as if the beginning of the big bang was literally the beginning of all.  They often talk as if this issue were scientifically settled.  They often talk as if doubting them on this is unscientific.  But they are often the same people who say that begun things have to have causes, so I have to wonder if they don't support science only when they think it supports them.  Often enough they'll say first that nothing comes from nothing, and then turn around and say that Jehovah created the universe from nothing.  

So I went on campus and found a cosmologist and put the question to him.  He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.  Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.  Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."  

Bertrand Russell said something like this:  "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion; when the experts are not agreed, the layman does well not to hold any opinion at all."  

So here's my opinion as to whether the beginning of the big bang was the ultimate beginning:  I don't know.  

I'm not aware of a scientific consensus on the matter, and I don't have the expertise that would warrant me having my own opinion.

-

I have some concern about equivocation on the word "universe."  To me, this usually means everything that exists.  So, if a god exists, it is part of the universe.  So I don't see how a god could create the universe.  That would mean, among other things, creating itself.  

But if we only mean some things, rather than all things -- for clarity, we can call it a partaverse as opposed to the allaverse -- then I don't see what this premise gets you. 

"P2: Some things had a beginning."  Yes, I'm happy to agree with that, but I don't think you can build a first cause argument on that foundation.

I posted this way back in this thread:
-------
For reference, the BVG paper was 2003.

Vilenkin in his book (which comes 3 years after the paper): "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

In the Youtube video I posted (2012) Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition (any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past) still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”

You are simply refusing to call the space-time boundary the beginning of our universe. And then somehow you conclude because WLC calls it the beginning (as does Vilenkin), WLC does not understand the science. 

It is unavoidable. If you need "new physics", a universe generator, or some other mechanism (a cause) to move across the boundary than you have a beginning of our universe. 
-------

You are correct, science breaks down as you pass through the singularity (not a thing but a boundary) and models do not help us.  So, we cannot use science prior to that point. Now the only way to ponder that question is to use metaphysics.

Regarding the universe includes God: that would not be the definition of the universe. The universe is all space-time and physical matter that came into being 13 billion years ago. 

[SteveII]

If we're talking about the partaverse, not including, say, gods, then, yes your argument is valid.  But all you've proven is that some stuff had causes.  Big whoop.  

Or, if we're talking about the allaverse, and we haven't equivocated (that is, if we were also talking about the allaverse in P2) then the argument is valid, but it "proves" that your god had a cause.

And, if "universe" refers to a partaverse in P2 but refers to the allaverse in the conclusion, then the argument is not valid.  

-

If we're just talking about the partaverse, I don't know why we're talking at all.  The intent of the first cause argument, as I understand it, is to establish the ultimate cause of everything.  

If we're talking about the allaverse, then your god (if it exists) is also caused, and that entirely defeats your claim to have established an uncaused cause.  

P1 said "whatever begins to exist has a cause". If P1 and P2 are true, then the conclusion is true. We inductively reason what could be the cause of the universe (or its predecessors). That entity would be:

eternal-uncaused-did not begin to exist (avoids the infinite causal chain problem)
timeless (existed before time)
non-physical (exists before all of physical matter existed)
has intent (decided to create something rather than not create something)
powerful enough to make something out of nothing

This is all the conclusions we get from this particular question. Note I did not conclude the God of the Bible.

[Simon Moon]

If we're talking about the partaverse, not including, say, gods, then, yes your argument is valid.  But all you've proven is that some stuff had causes.  Big whoop.  

Or, if we're talking about the allaverse, and we haven't equivocated (that is, if we were also talking about the allaverse in P2) then the argument is valid, but it "proves" that your god had a cause.

And, if "universe" refers to a partaverse in P2 but refers to the allaverse in the conclusion, then the argument is not valid.  

-

If we're just talking about the partaverse, I don't know why we're talking at all.  The intent of the first cause argument, as I understand it, is to establish the ultimate cause of everything.  

If we're talking about the allaverse, then your god (if it exists) is also caused, and that entirely defeats your claim to have established an uncaused cause.  

P1 said "whatever begins to exist has a cause". If P1 and P2 are true, then the conclusion is true. We inductively reason what could be the cause of the universe (or its predecessors). That entity would be:

eternal-uncaused-did not begin to exist (avoids the infinite causal chain problem)
timeless (existed before time)
non-physical (exists before all of physical matter existed)
has intent (decided to create something rather than not create something)
powerful enough to make something out of nothing

This is all the conclusions we get from this particular question. Note I did not conclude the God of the Bible.

As i pointed out quite a bit earlier in this thread, since you only believe one thing did not begin to exist, your argument is guilty of the fallacy affirming the consequent.

Unless you believe there was more then one thing that did not begin to exist.