Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[R00tKiT]

The cosmological argument might be persuasive as a first cause argument ([*note 1]), but it is a non-starter as an argument for the existence of any god.  

Well, I think it's already progress enough if we manage to agree on the existence of a first cause based on this argument. Arguing for a god requires additional arguments, of course.

This is easily shown by the following facts.  The cosmological argument requires that this universe be caused, but it does not require that the cause be supernatural. 

Well, when you think about it, this cause must be supernatural. If by natural you mean anything inside the universe, then a cause of the universe has to be outside of it, and because it caused the natural world, it can rightfully be labeled super-natural, or if you don't like the term, simply non-natural.

 In order for any cause to be a god, it must be supernatural because a natural cause is not a god. 

As I explained above, a cause of the natural world can't also be natural. Nature is simply the label we assign to what's around us. So, any cause of the universe, even if it's not a deity, can't be called natural.

But if the cause of this universe lies within another, natural universe, we have no way of knowing if that universe began to exist, nor what the laws of that universe even are.  So the cosmological argument gets us one step back and then fails miserably to demonstrate the minimum needed to demonstrate a god, that the cause is supernatural.  Furthermore, there can be no evidence that the immediate cause of this universe is supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as any non-natural cause, and to demonstrate a non-natural cause, you must show that no natural cause can be the source of the effect.  There is no argument that can show there is non-natural cause beyond arguments from ignorance, which are invalid.

Again, you really have to define the word natural. If other universes exist prior to this one, then it's not really a defeater. We can simply consider them all together and call them a collection of universes. This entire collection can then be a premise of the same argument.

So, summing up:

1. The cosmological argument does not demonstrate a supernatural immediate cause of the universe;
   
2. No argument can demonstrate that the immediate cause of the universe is supernatural;
   
3. If the immediate cause of this universe is natural, then the premises of the cosmological argument may be violated by that prior cause;
   
4. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot demonstrate that an immediate cause of this universe needed a cause;
   
5. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot demonstrate that an ultimate, supernatural cause of this universe is necessary;
   
6. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot show that a god is necessary for the existence of this universe;
   

All these shortcomings, assuming they are true, can be circumvented by adjusting the definition of the universe without changing the argument, as I did above.

1. Corollary, no a posteriori argument can show the existence of a god given the above,
      for example, the universe may have been designed by natural intelligences in another universe;
   

Your corollary is simply false, the teleological argument is also considered to be an a posteriori argument, which you didn't address. And all your objections to the cosmological argument are either moving the goalposts or minutiae about nomenclature.

[HappySkeptic]

Well, when you think about it, this cause must be supernatural. If by natural you mean anything inside the universe, then a cause of the universe has to be outside of it, and because it caused the natural world, it can rightfully be labeled super-natural, or if you don't like the term, simply non-natural.

Nope, you don't get to postulate "outside the universe" just to get out of the problem of infinite regress. 

You are admitting that a "first cause" makes no sense, because the cause itself would require a cause -- so you postulate some realm where causality isn't required, and just say there is a deity there that makes universes.

If you break causality, then you break your ability to argue for or against a first cause.  This whole discussion is pointless.  "First cause" is a terrible argument for God.  A far better one is fine-tuning, and I've seen everyone here turn on that one.

[R00tKiT]

Arguing for a god adds no explanatory power.  It is simply employing magic.  The Big Bang might've formed out of a quantum realm where time flows in loops.  Have fun figuring out whether your linear-time ideas of cause are even valid -- especially in a quantum world where random events can and do happen (they are causal only in the sense that past states determine probabilities when averaged over many events).  Even if it were, have fun showing that this cause is similar to what humans have called a god.

As I already explained to @Angrboda, a prior physical state or quantum realm can simply be concatenated to this universe, we can simply apply the same argument to the set (universe+some quantum realm). Since time seems to be intrinsically linked to space, we can simply consider the entire spacetime where these so-called time loops happen as one big element in a chain of causes. 

So, the crux of the matter is whether an infinite regress of actual causes can be ruled out or not. Al-Ghazali presented an argument for that and was adopted more recently by WLC, but I should take some time to look it up.

---

Nope, you don't get to postulate "outside the universe" just to get out of the problem of infinite regress. 

You are admitting that a "first cause" makes no sense, because the cause itself would require a cause -- so you postulate some realm where causality isn't required, and just say there is a deity there that makes universes.

If you break causality, then you break your ability to argue for or against a first cause.  This whole discussion is pointless.  "First cause" is a terrible argument for God.  A far better one is fine-tuning, and I've seen everyone here turn on that one.

Not at all, dude. It's not my position that causality breaks down outside of the universe, it's yours.

[Spongebob]

I've had enough of this...

...no you haven't.

[Angrboda]

The cosmological argument might be persuasive as a first cause argument ([*note 1]), but it is a non-starter as an argument for the existence of any god.  

Well, I think it's already progress enough if we manage to agree on the existence of a first cause based on this argument. Arguing for a god requires additional arguments, of course.

I said it might be persuasive.  I didn't say that I was persuaded.

This is easily shown by the following facts.  The cosmological argument requires that this universe be caused, but it does not require that the cause be supernatural.

Well, when you think about it, this cause must be supernatural. If by natural you mean anything inside the universe, then a cause of the universe has to be outside of it, and because it caused the natural world, it can rightfully be labeled super-natural, or if you don't like the term, simply non-natural.

That's not what I mean by natural, so your objection is moot.  By natural I mean that the thing is obeying whatever nomological principles apply to its local reality.  A being in a predecessor universe may lack any of the necessary characteristics required of a god in being a mere subject of its own reality and also be the cause of this universe.

I think we both know what is meant by supernatural and that a god needs to be, whereas an immediate predecessor need not.  Since the immediate predecessor to the this universe that is the cause of this universe need not be a god, the cosmological argument cannot show that the cause of this universe had the characteristics of a god.  And since the nomological principles of that predecessor universe may violate the assumptions of the cosmological argument, the cosmological argument fails to demonstrate a godlike prior cause.

You're faced with a Catch-22 -- either God is not master and commander, or else his aseity prevents him from being demonstrated.  As a Muslim, you can't give up Allah's role as master and commander, nor can you demonstrate his existence if that is not required -- because then he isn't above nature in his own reality.

 In order for any cause to be a god, it must be supernatural because a natural cause is not a god. 

As I explained above, a cause of the natural world can't also be natural. Nature is simply the label we assign to what's around us. So, any cause of the universe, even if it's not a deity, can't be called natural.

As noted, natural need not mean what you asserted and has a coherent alternative definition for which the arguments still hold.  So, no, you don't get to define natural this way.

But if the cause of this universe lies within another, natural universe, we have no way of knowing if that universe began to exist, nor what the laws of that universe even are.  So the cosmological argument gets us one step back and then fails miserably to demonstrate the minimum needed to demonstrate a god, that the cause is supernatural.  Furthermore, there can be no evidence that the immediate cause of this universe is supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as any non-natural cause, and to demonstrate a non-natural cause, you must show that no natural cause can be the source of the effect.  There is no argument that can show there is non-natural cause beyond arguments from ignorance, which are invalid.

Again, you really have to define the word natural. If other universes exist prior to this one, then it's not really a defeater. We can simply consider them all together and call them a collection of universes. This entire collection can then be a premise of the same argument.

You can't consider all universes together because other universes may not obey the same principles that this universe does.  They can only be considered collectively if they do.

So, summing up:

1. The cosmological argument does not demonstrate a supernatural immediate cause of the universe;
   
2. No argument can demonstrate that the immediate cause of the universe is supernatural;
   
3. If the immediate cause of this universe is natural, then the premises of the cosmological argument may be violated by that prior cause;
   
4. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot demonstrate that an immediate cause of this universe needed a cause;
   
5. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot demonstrate that an ultimate, supernatural cause of this universe is necessary;
   
6. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot show that a god is necessary for the existence of this universe;
   

All these shortcomings, assuming they are true, can be circumvented by adjusting the definition of the universe without changing the argument, as I did above.

And they can be brought right back by denying your definitional move and presenting a valid alternative.  Insisting on a specific definition is not a valid way to argue any point.  It's just a semantic argument.

1. Corollary, no a posteriori argument can show the existence of a god given the above,
      for example, the universe may have been designed by natural intelligences in another universe;
   

Your corollary is simply false, the teleological argument is also considered to be an a posteriori argument, which you didn't address. And all your objections to the cosmological argument are either moving the goalposts or minutiae about nomenclature.

I alluded to it without making it explicit.  This universe may have been designed by a being in an immediate predecessor universe who is not a god, and nothing further can be known about that predecessor universe and so the buck stops there with this universe having a natural cause.  Your second sentence is simply false.  I moved no goalposts, nor made my arguments dependent on minutiae about nomenclature -- the latter of which is precisely what you did.  Try answering the actual point.

---

Arguing for a god adds no explanatory power.  It is simply employing magic.  The Big Bang might've formed out of a quantum realm where time flows in loops.  Have fun figuring out whether your linear-time ideas of cause are even valid -- especially in a quantum world where random events can and do happen (they are causal only in the sense that past states determine probabilities when averaged over many events).  Even if it were, have fun showing that this cause is similar to what humans have called a god.

As I already explained to @Angrboda, a prior physical state or quantum realm can simply be concatenated to this universe, we can simply apply the same argument to the set (universe+some quantum realm). Since time seems to be intrinsically linked to space, we can simply consider the entire spacetime where these so-called time loops happen as one big element in a chain of causes. 

As noted, it can't be concatenated unless it shares the same properties, namely having begun to exist; it need not, so it cannot be concatenated.

Neither can this one be shown to have begun to exist, for that matter, as it can't be shown that some natural explanation like Hawking-Hartle is not the case.

So, the crux of the matter is whether an infinite regress of actual causes can be ruled out or not. Al-Ghazali presented an argument for that and was adopted more recently by WLC, but I should take some time to look it up.

The Al-Ghazali argument relies upon equivocation and so is invalid.  Don't waste your time.


ETA: I screwed up editing this and had to redo portions; apologies if I missed something or if anything is still askew.

[HappySkeptic]

Great argument, @Angrboda .

When I was on the Amazon religion forum (before it got shut down), one participant had a thesis that one can never prove the supernatural.  If you could, it would be part of the natural.  

I argued that one could postulate supernatural aspects from the natural manifestations of Zeus actually doing things and showing himself, but he argued that no, you could only prove the natural aspect of Zeus, and not that there was anything supernatural behind it.

Of course, Kirk solves it in Who Mourns for Adonais?. There's always an "energy source", lol.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Wow, I'm amazed people have not gotten bored of this thread yet. As Klor essentially makes the same thread over and over again 

[HappySkeptic]

Wow, I'm amazed people have not gotten bored of this thread yet. As Klor essentially makes the same thread over and over again 

True - I'm getting tired of the walls of text, using invalid and tired arguments from ages past.  A Mother's love for their child is proof that the first cause was a loving god?  WTF?

[R00tKiT]

That's not what I mean by natural, so your objection is moot.  By natural I mean that the thing is obeying whatever nomological principles apply to its local reality.  A being in a predecessor universe may lack any of the necessary characteristics required of a god in being a mere subject of its own reality and also be the cause of this universe.  The prior universe need not obey the assumptions of the cosmological argument, so the case for a god as a cause stops there.

As you already know, the cosmological argument has very few assumptions, actually, one assumption: causality. Causality is a critical assumption. Honestly, I don't have a lot of respect for any position allowing for a violation of causality. It's not very good philosophy to reject the simplest principles of thought just to escape an argument.

You objected before to the "something can't give/cause what it doesn't have", this rule seems to be, however, competely valid inside our universe (conservation of mass), and can be justified outside of it. A cause of the universe can't be some inept entity, after all, it was at least capable of causing the entire universe with all what we know about it, including the marvelous arrangement of matter and natural laws. Since, from experience, we know we can't obtain an orderly machine or construction without hard work and a lot of willpower and determination, it seems plausible (more probable than not= its probability being true is >1/2) that a cause of the universe intended for these laws to happen. Attributing these laws to coincidence is not a solution, since coincidence already presupposes the existence of various objects that coincide with each other. A non-personal cause, if we were to apply the same rule in bold, can't yield personal agents.

The common defeater along the lines of "natural laws permit complexity to arise from simplicity" is not an issue at all, because natural laws are part of the fabric of the universe, they are descriptive, not prescriptive, they describe its inner workings. Simply put, complexity arising from simplicity is an instrument of the designer/the cause of the universe, it's evidently part of its effects. So, one can't explain away the designer/cause by referring to other parts of the same design/effect.

You're faced with a Catch-22 -- either God is not master and commander, or else his aseity prevents him from being demonstrated.  As a Muslim, you can't give up Allah's role as master and commander, nor can you demonstrate his existence if that is not required -- because then he isn't above nature in his own reality.

Even if we assume no deductive argument is conclusive, we can still infer God's existence based on what we see in the world. I see appearances of order, I marvel at God's omnipotence. I see instances of caregiving, I admire God's benevolence, etc.  Islam endorses the idea of the sensus divinitatis (Fitra'), that is, I am simply tilted toward teleology and assigning agency to things. I should simply listen to this innate sense.

You can't consider all universes together because other universes may not obey the same principles that this universe does.  They can only be considered collectively if they do.

We already considerd many very different things together when we labeled them a universe. If at least one universe of a collection of universes violates causality, then I completely agree, no further arguments can be made (and welcome to sophistry), if not, then they have the principle of causality as a common governing principle, and we can still consider regress arguments.

[Jehanne]

Why not just say that the Cosmos is infinite and has no beginning:

Astronomy Magazine -- Cyclic Cosmologies