I often observe people bringing out the “who made God” question, so let me just throw this out:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument clearly explains how it is that the creative force behind the universe needs no creator but the universe does, and if someone claims they’ve found a way to disprove this argument, you can be practically assured they don’t truly understand it.
Is it a cop-out to say the physical world needs a cause, but the same doesn’t apply to the creative force behind it? Well, no: the physical world is such that to claim it’s origin is inherent within itself is to claim actual infinite regresses can physically exist, which is illogical, even if one posits cyclical universes. Even quantum virtual particles, the popular basis for the atheist version of “creatio ex nihilo”, are effects that require prior causation. It’s clear that the cause of the universe must not be bound by the universe’s temporal and causative constraints, and thus must exist “outside” of it, perhaps in another dimension of some sort. Far from being a dodge or an argument from convenience, it’s simply the only logical assumption (at this point in human knowledge).
That this creative force is likely the Judeo-Christian God is fodder for a different post, but the Kalam Cosmological Argument link does touch on certain reasons as to why this is probable.
Who made God? That’s like asking what the color blue smells like, or how many married bachelor’s are there, or from where do atheists derive their objective morality. 
March 9, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Even if we accept that the cause of the universe exists “outside” of itself as you claim, it doesn’t remotely follow that Yahweh or anyone else created it. Strip away the sophistry, and what you are doing here is what Creationists have always done, which in essence is to claim that the universe cannot spontaneously come into existence whereas a supernatural entity such as a god can.
March 9, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Please note I clearly stated that this post doesn’t fully develop that the creative force is God. I’ll be posting on that soon, but if you take the time to read to the end of the linked article, you’ll see some connections made.
No reasonable person, creationist or not, claims God “came into existence”. That’s the whole point, He is necessarily an uncaused cause. That the creative force behind the universe is an uncaused cause is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe as we know it within our current scientific understandings. You seem to be greatly misunderstanding the argument. I suggest you think about what it would mean to be the creative force behind a universe such as the one in which we find ourselves. In the words of the article, “the simple syllogism lying at the heart of the kalam cosmological argument should be supplemented by a conceptual analysis of what it is to be a cause of the universe, an exercise which serves to recover many of the traditional divine attributes, demonstrating that the inferred cause of the universe is an uncaused, beginningless, timeless, changeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of unimaginable power.”
As for the claim of sophistry: sophistry refers to arguments meant to sound impressive, but that are logically fallacious. I’d be extremely grateful to you if you’d point out where any of the arguments I’ve put forth are illogical or unreasonable, but please take the time to fully understand the arguments. Thanks!
March 9, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I am acquainted with the reasoning behind the Kalam Cosmological Argument and I have a dictionary at hand in case I need word definitions, so please refrain from veiled insults which do nothing to further the discussion.
The basis of your case is that the universe cannot spontaneously come into existence and therefore needs a cause. Your creator-god, on the other hand, can spontaneously come into existence, or alternatively and conveniently, does not need to come into existence because it has always existed. In other words, the Biblical “I am the Alpha and the Omega” repackaged to sound as though it has some scientific validity.
March 9, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I apologize for any offense, none was intended; I was merely pointing out that such a statement implies illogic on the part of the accused, and I was requesting assistance in understanding where this was the case. You have yet to assist in this way, but I’m open to any substantive counter points you may have.
There’s no “re-packaging” going on here at all. I’m simply laying out the case solely through logical evidence with no recourse to the Bible. If you claim that any scientific evidence which coincides with the Bible is invalid, you’ve arbitrarily decided through blind faith that theism can never be true, and we can’t really have a discussion. If, on the other hand, you feel the argument is logically lacking, again, I await your counter points.
Please understand I mean no disrespect to you. I’m simply interested in a focused discussion which leads where it leads with no a priori prejudices obscuring reason.
March 9, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Apology accepted, let’s move on.
I’m not dismissing it on the grounds that it coincides with the Bible – let me elaborate:
We begin with: There is no actual infinite. (Something which has not been established one way or the other but I am happy to concede the point for the purpose of this discussion). If there is no actual infinite, the universe cannot and does not exist forever and has not existed forever in past. If it has not existed forever in the past, it must have a beginning. And if it has a beginning it must have come into existence. It must therefore have a cause. (So far, so good).
The cause must be infinite because otherwise it too would have a beginning and it too would require a cause to come into existence – ad infinitum (pun not intended). Since the infinite cannot exist within something that has an end, the cause must be ‘outside’ the universe.
Okay, I can live that for the sake of this discussion even though it presumes a 4 dimensional universe and takes no account of more modern notions such as a 12 dimensional spacetime multiverse in which there are any number of universes whose physical laws may differ from our own and in which – since time as we understand it might not exist - terms like infinite and finite have no meaning.
Now we make the unsustainable leap. This cause which brings about our universe cannot be ‘natural’ it must be ‘supernatural’ and it cannot be a force or an effect, it must be superbeing who fashions it much like a potter fashions a pot. More than that, it is a specific superbeing called Yahweh. Why, because some ancient nomads say it was.
Can you see why I might have some doubts?
Now I’m neither a physicist or a mathematician, I have no idea if any of this is right or wrong. You might be correct – perhaps Yahweh really did make the world. But I hope you will agree that to favour one idea over another from all the various possibilities is preference not proof. And to believe one account over another is faith not fact.
March 9, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Thanks for the elaboration, this is great stuff.
I just have three simple points/questions:
1. If you know of any well-regarded physicist who has evidence that actual infinites exist in the physical universe, I’d love to know about it. It’s pretty established that they only exist abstractly in mathematical theory. This is typically argued only by people who are dedicated to views that require them to exist physically.
2. You mention the argument presumes a 4 dimensional universe, but how? The point is THIS universe cannot self-create, that’s all that matters in the framework of this argument.
3. The “unsustainable leap” goes into territory I haven’t really explored in the post, but from the linked article, you can read:
“…it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water’s being frozen is the temperature’s being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.”
No ancient nomads here, just reason and logic.
3. I DO see why you have some doubts, because it seems like you’ve only been exposed to solid arguments for atheism and not theism. Based on your multiple references to theism relying only on ancient “mythological” ignorance, you seem to not see that I favor theism based on it’s stronger logical and evidenciary position, not blind faith.
March 10, 2007 at 6:25 am
This will probably be my final post on the subject, not because it isn’t fun but because the more we venture into the hypothetical the less satisfactory, for both of us, any conclusions we reach may be.
1. As I said, as far as I know the existence of actual infinities has not been established one way or the other. But we also run into difficulties with the inexactitude of terms like ‘physical’ universe. What do we mean by this? Are we talking only about the ‘visible’ universe or do we include stuff like dark matter, dark energy etc. Can the ‘physical’ universe be said to exist beyond the event horizon of a black hole, for example. I think you can see where I’m going with this: so little is known about the universe that to label it ‘physical’ is to constrain it. Indeed, there may be, what we might call, a metaphysical component – and one could speculate endlessly about what might exist there, if indeed ‘existence’ as we understand it is appropriate. Which brings me to…
2. All we can say with reasonable certainty is that, given a 4 dimensional universe (and this implies that ‘time’ is a dimension which in itself is debatable), one can follow a logical path which suggests that such a universe cannot self-create. But look at the problems we have here. Let’s use ‘time’ as an example; we know practically nothing about it. We cannot even agree (Mankind, not you and I) whether it ‘flows’ sequentially or whether this is just a subjective perception. Perhaps it doesn’t even ‘flow’ at all, in which case terms like ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ have no meaning Again, we can wander off into science-fiction but the fact remains that there is so much that is unknown - and so many possibilities - that logical pathways cannot on their own constitute proof. Take this from Wikipedia for example:
“Some physicists believe that the universe is spatially unbounded. The theory of relativity places a firm upper limit on the speed at which information can travel, effectively dividing this infinite space into “local” universes. Our observable universe, for example, is a sphere centered on the Earth (centered, that is, on whoever’s doing the calculating), currently about 46.5 billion light years in radius, called the Hubble volume. Thus, there are an infinite number of regions of space the same size as our observable universe — an infinite number of observable universes, that is.”
You can, if you choose, disregard the substance of that quote for the sake of this discussion but note the use of the word ‘believe’. For this is what it is all about: belief. We are too primitive as yet to have certainties. Moreover, you and I could continue to post chunks of pseudo-scientific gobbledygook ad nauseum which, however grounded in logic, would still not establish anything. Which brings me to…
3. I accept that you haven’t yet fully explored ‘the unsustainable leap’. But forgive me if I suspect that somehow and in some way your exploration will end up with Yahweh - in your own Christian mind at least.
I could pick many holes in the passage you quoted (as you could mine) but I will confine myself to the most glaring problem, which is: The author assumes that because the cause is eternal the effect must be eternal (the frozen water) and for it to be otherwise there needs to be an intelligent agent which exerts its will (a creator). But this assumes a static cause and therein lies the flaw. Imagine, if you will, that the cause is a fluid construction; an endless combination of factors (permutations of ‘branes’ in M-theory) which give rise to an infinite number of possibilities (universes). If this were so, an ‘eternal cause’ could give rise to a ‘temporal effect’ without consciousness or will.
Of course, this simply moves the question of ‘creation’ (as in Creationism) up a level (who created the ‘multiverse’). But since I am seeking to refute your explanation and not seeking to establish my own (because I don’t have one) this is permissible.
Finally, I restate my contention that all this is largely a matter of faith and not science. Moreover, it is my belief that your attempts to establish the existence of a deity, let alone a specific one, through science will not lead you closer to your god. In my view, in your endeavours you have underestimated the complexity and the sheer wonder that is the universe, and in doing so are in danger of causing insult to that which you call its Creator (if that’s possible
). Nevertheless, I wish you luck and I hope you find what you are seeking. For my part, I will remain wonderfully baffled by it all.
As I said at the start, I won’t respond further (unless severely provoked) so until we meet again, take care.
March 10, 2007 at 12:47 pm
You know, Juke, I really appreciate your thoughtfulness. You’ve made interesting points, and I thank you for the time you put in, it’s really appreciated. I agree that further hypothetical exploration would be fruitless.
So my impression of your general final position is basically that there’s limitless possibilities for what we observe in the universe, so why choose theism? And again, I say available EVIDENCE. True, there can be no certainties in our fallible understandings, and nothing can be established beyond any doubt whatsoever, but we should reasonably act on the evidence we have and be prepared to change our views if differing evidence comes to light. To argue otherwise is to deny the value of knowledge, science, education, and much of what humanity holds dear.
I feel there’s major problems in the refutations you offered (as I’m sure you feel about mine), but nonetheless, if the Kalam cosmological argument were the only argument for theism, I would probably be agnostic veering towards atheism. However, there’s a wealth of evidence for theism: the KCA, the ontological argument, the argument from morality, the transcendental argument, and much more. There have been refutations of all, but I find such refutations generally lacking in an understanding of the real substance of the argument. If one isn’t significantly familiar with each of these as well as the stongest arguments for atheism, and their respective refutations, I would find it difficult to believe that one has an informed, reasonable position. It could be hypothetically claimed that to truly explore theistic arguments is as pointless as truly exploring the existence of, say, leprechauns, but the substantial amount of objectively great thinkers in history who subscribed to the reasonableness, even necessity, of theism shows such a claim to be without validity.
One could also hypothetically claim that all theists start with theism a priori and reason back to it, but my personal path has honestly been exactly the opposite. I came to theism because I found popular explanations for many aspects of existence to be thin and seemingly only embraced to service a frail materialism.
Your second to last paragraph makes an important point about the wonder of the universe, but you allow this wonder, together with human limitations, to lead to a perspective which I feel encourages ignorance. No theist will ever come close to fully understanding God or His creation (it would be self-refuting to believe otherwise), but I feel allowing that to extinguish the fire of a passionate search for knowledge would be tragic. I’m not trying to “establish” anything, I’m simply seeking greater understanding of the nature of the world and my place in it by way of the best tools available to me, as I hope all people would. Due to humanity’s lack of omniscience, ultimately all beliefs, including scientific beliefs, are grounded in faith. Said faith can range from the utterly blind to the highly-evidence-based. The dichotomy you create between faith and science is false.
My hope for us both is that we would hold our views loosely, honestly, and in constant review based on new evidence, and that we both would remain wonderfully baffled. I wish you the best, and again, thanks.
March 10, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Your link in the main article to Kalam Cosmological Argument seems to refer to your own post… but somehow I doubt this self-referential link was intentional…
What would you suggest for those (like me) who are unfamiliar with the argument? Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
March 10, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Wow, that was a very nice read. Thank you both!
I will not try to continue as I do not think I could keep up to your standards, but I will say this: I was surprised by your statement Poppies. “Your second to last paragraph makes an important point about the wonder of the universe, but you allow this wonder, together with human limitations, to lead to a perspective which I feel encourages ignorance.”
I share the same wonder as Juke. But I would not call that a view which leads to ignorance, and I would normally be inclined to feel insulted but I believe it was a concerned tone. Instead, I see Juke’s awe as one of the most open views that exists where we consider as many possibilities as the mind allows, yet do not allow ourselves to choose one. For most of my religious friends, they have found their certainty and are thus close minded. I admire your blog, as far as I have read, as you seem to be holding an open mind. However, I believe that the human mind is full of built-in tendencies. My psychology courses in university have shown me how gullible we are and I think that many of the arguments for theism exploit this.
I will end by supporting Juke in his point that there are far too many assumptions made (if that was not one of your points please excuse me Juke). We know so little about the “physical” universe and how time works. I recently read about an idea (far from a full scientific theory, I think) that black holes are creating separate universes and that it was possible for an evolution of universes to exist in some meta-verse. I only point this out to show that many of those assumptions used in theistic arguments are just that, assumptions. I see no reason to even lean towards any of the above mentioned assumptions compared to any other ideas expressed in opposition.
March 11, 2007 at 3:48 am
Wow, wallflower, that’s a scream, don’t know how that happened. I guess it’s clear that Juke didn’t read it!
It’s fixed now, the link is http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
Suby, I’m glad you realized I meant no insult. I’m clearly all for keeping an open mind. Considering possibilities is all fine and good until one is forced to make a choice by the dynamic nature of life. I think it’s painfully clear that one should have an informed position on the theism/atheism debate, because the ramifications of either position demand wholly different lifestyles. Neither position allows for simple abstract pondering unconnected with our everyday actions. Ignorance is not simply lack of knowledge, but also the lack of applying what one knows, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
People certainly are gullible, but I don’t see how theistic arguments take special advantage of that. As usual, if you’d like to point out where this is the case in anything I’ve written or linked, by all means feel free. I’d hate to be taking advantage of gullibility and not know it.
Regarding assumptions, every possible position on an issue is backed by a whole host of assumptions, that’s the nature of hypothesizing. The question comes down to: are the assumptions reasonable and in accordance with available evidence? I find atheists often must bring up wildly speculative theories (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia and read about Directed Panspermia) to back up their positions, and this just shows how strongly theism accords with what we “know” of the universe. Everything might change tommorrow with different evidence coming to light all the time, but I don’t feel that’s a reason to stay epistemologically frozen.
I’m ready to admit that most theists are closed-minded, but so are most atheists, it’s just a common trait in people everywhere. The reason I embrace theism is, when I take an open-minded look, the strength of it’s assumptions are far greater than those of atheism.
March 11, 2007 at 5:24 am
“I guess it’s clear that Juke didn’t read it!”
I did actually, else how could I refute it with such precision? And here’s a slightly more balanced account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument for those without an axe to grind
March 11, 2007 at 5:38 am
I would question with how much “precision” your refutations arrived (
), but it’s good to know the link worked for you.
And I think the link you mention (and wallflower, too) IS actually pretty balanced, and a good resource for those interested in a starting point for learning more. Thanks.
March 11, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I’ve never been able to swallow the supposed necessity of a creator being. Nor has Saadia’s idea that there cannot be an infinite past had any resonance. They are all nifty proofs, but they lack that clean logical progression that marks a sound argument (nevermind valid!). Why should an infinite progression be impossible in nature?
I think it is fine to simply admit we just don’t know about how things started (or even if they did), whether from a scientific, theological, or philosophical perspective. We have some ideas. We think there may be a God (and have some really cool proofs), have some ideas about how the world changes over time, but beyond that, what do we really know?
Can we even answer the most basic of questions: What are we?
March 11, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Wow, what’s with the Scorched Earth Policy parade in the comments on this post? By Scorched Earth Policy, I mean the idea that if we don’t know everything, we can’t reasonably act on ANY supposed “knowledge”. In stark contrast to this, my position is, as I’ve mentioned before, that ignorance is not applying one’s best understandings. These understandings may need to shift based on the latest substantial evidence, but that’s the price we pay for truly living.
Why should an infinite progression be impossible in nature? Because we have a wealth of observed evidence that it is impossible, and a dearth of evidence that it is possible. If anyone can show me evidence to the contrary, I’m ready to hear it.
I try not to use niftiness or personal resonance as my proposition acceptance benchmarks, I try to stick with logical coherency and evidence-backed assumptions. Accordingly, if you would like to expound on where you feel the argument is invalid or unjustified, I would be most grateful.
March 11, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Ignorance is a lack of understanding. Perhaps stupidity is failing to apply understanding.
How can we observe an infinite progression to be impossible? How does one observe the infinite?
The problem is it is an unprovable position whether or not they could exist. Of course there is no evidence it is possible. I’m highly skeptical of any evidence to the contrary for the same central reason.
I’m just trying to convey my respect for the intellectual effort put forth by the authors. The proofs themselves lack merit on a purely logical basis.
With gusto:
“Atheists have not felt compelled to embrace the view that the universe came into being out of nothing for no reason at all; rather they regard the universe itself as a sort of factually necessary being: the universe is eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible.”
Who said the universe is eternal? The description here does not match the proffered exemplar of such thought: “As Russell neatly put it, ” . . . The universe is just there, and that’s all.”[8]“.
In other words, we know we exist, we know we perceive a universe, and by standing on the backs of certain epistemic arguments, we work with the knowledge of the universe as existing. Beyond that, what makes a creator being “necessary”?
“1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.
”
The article goes on to try and support premise 2 (which I reject). But premise 1 is equally problematic. How can we say for certain that every effect has a cause?
Perhaps the first effect was the only effect without a cause. Perhaps creation arises from nothingness on a daily basis, and causal action is merely how created entities interact.
But the central problem is in premise 2, which the author spends a great deal of time defending. Simply put, an infinite series is not observable. Imagine an infinite series of stars. How would you verify their infinity? Is your inability to perform this check proof that the stars are not infinite?
This is proof by ignorance.
I cannot prove x.
Therefore x cannot exist in nature.
What is sound about that argument?
PS (I would also call this post nifty. I disagree with the conclusion, but I really enjoy the arguments put forth).
March 11, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Cutting and pasting from a prior comment: Ignorance is not simply lack of knowledge, but also the lack of applying what one knows, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance
Regarding disproving actual infinites: we can’t observe macroevolution, does that mean it’s not provable? Amenability to observation isn’t a key requirement for scientific validity, contrary to popular opinion.
The article is not attempting to prove anything from ignorance. It is simply saying based on available evidence, it seems the universe was created by an outside, eternal force. Asking questions like “how can we say for certain that every effect has a cause?” or “how can we be sure that actual infinites are impossible?” is like saying “how do we know for sure that between the Earth and Mars there is not a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit?”.
No human proposition is beyond the tiniest shred of doubt, but we can only work with the evidence we have. If you’re advocating that every truth proposition be held to a standard of utter irrefutability, I suggest humanity’s progress will be awfully slow.
P.S. Your opinions are valued and considered nifty, so thanks for offering them.
March 12, 2007 at 7:27 am
The main reason that I, currently, refuse to choose a side in the arguments about the universes beginning is because of the implications current physics has pointed to. We have very, very little understanding of what it means for there to be no time, as time is clearly part of space and if both were created in the big-bang then excuse me, but what the hell was before space-time? It doesn’t even make sense to ask that question if there was no time. For me, this is one of the most astounding problems. If there was no time, we cannot talk about cause and effect. If there was no space, what does it mean to exist? We have no evidence to suggest anything in this other realm as nothing we know of applies there. Hence I reject any claim to divinity from some source that most claim to be “outside” of this universe of space-time existence.
March 12, 2007 at 8:50 am
Whenever we look at an argument there are two considerations that must be made: (i) validity and (ii) soundness. It is fallacious to presume that because an argument may be valid, that it is sound. Lets take an example:
(1) If unicorns are pink then god exists.
(2) Unicorns are pink.
(3) :. God exists.
This is a valid argument, but it is most certainy NOT sound. That is, we have not established in any sense that god really does exist. David Hume pointed this type of thing out in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: semantic tricks do not establish the existence of things– arguments of this sort (purporting to prove the existence of some thing (cause…etc) are always fallacious. To illustrate this point more clearly: just because a chemist can write down H20 does not mean that the symbols making up H20 magically convert to actual water.
The problem with the Kalam cosmological argument from this perspective is that although it may (if we assume validity for now) establish an inuitive basis for a cause it does not at any rate establish that there IS a cause. If completely succesful the most it can establish is that we have to think of the universe as having a cause. The second problem and this goes against ultimate soundness is the fact that we cannot really determine necessary connections between causes and effects. D. Hume pointed this out, and the author of the linked article covers this briefly by saying that D. Hume did not really believe this. This is a sophomoric error on the part of the author– whether or not D. Hume believed it has nothing to do with what D. Hume established, and in fact, he is quite clear in the Enquiry that although his speculations are uninuitive they are quite convincing as philosophical arguments.
March 12, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Suby, all I can say is, once again, we can only go off that for which we currently have evidence. Causal priority doesn’t necessarily imply temporal priority, so we can indeed talk about cause and effect before time. Existence doesn’t necessarily imply spatial boundary, so we can indeed talk about existence before space-time.
We must assume that reason has a place in all conceivable dimensions, because otherwise human knowledge-seeking is futile. It may very well be futile, but we’ll never know unless we pursue every reasonable avenue.
Arturo, welcome to the conversation. With all due respect to Hume, whose insights even I as a theist admire, his arguments are strictly formal and may or may not have any connection to reality. They are by his own admission unintuitive, as you reference, and if one were to follow his ideas to their logical conclusion, nothing could be known which could not be directly observed. This rules out a great swath of modern science, including that bedrock of Naturalism, macroevolution. No one truly lives out that level of skepticism, and anyone who believes they do is experiencing tremendous cognitive dissonance.
March 12, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Poppies,
“With all due respect to Hume, whose insights even I as a theist admire, his argument are strictly formal and may or may not have any connection to reality.”
And the Kalam cosmological argument is NOT strictly formal? And the Kalam cosmological argument may or may not have any connection to reality? Thank you for making my entire point (and in some senses D. Hume’s): Formal arguments cannot prove anything about reality.
March 12, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I do not think that I would be able to understand cause and effect OR existence without this “normal” space-time reality.
Space allows our physical existence, if there was a “nothing” before our universe, then existence as we know it would not be possible. Do you claim to be able to say anything about existence outside of the only boundary we know to our existence? I think that is quite a far-fetched claim with zero evidence, correct me if I am mistaken please. Empty space IS something, and it seems that it is what allows physical existence.
And, if time truly does cease to exist (possibly other dimensions factor in here) outside of our universe as would seem quite logical, it would be entirely possible for our universe to be its own cause. The circularity only appears circular in our timescale, in non-time, wouldn’t that just mean that the cause and effect can only exist together and not separately? Without time, I do not understand cause and effect. I do not understand how you are able to dismiss that so easily. What does it mean for A to cause B? Does it mean the existence of B will be certain if A exists? Nothing changes so what is the point of talking about cause and effect prior to time?
Current physics shows that the the space-time we live in is bubbling with sub-atomic particles popping in and out of existence (http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html talks a bit about it). I believe that cause and effect, and existence are a bit more complicated once you remove space-time and that we default to speculation which is unworthy of the attention we are giving it.
March 12, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Arturo is right on the mark.
Ignorance (as defined in the dictionary rather than wikipedia) refers to a mental state. Failure to apply knowledge may be an ignorant act, but it is not, in itself, ignorance. That just doesn’t make sense.
The difference with macroevolution is that the effects are observable, and we make our inferences about evolution through the observation and study of those effects. With regard to a universe with a start, what effects do we have to observe? (Even with the big bang, where we observe radiation throughout space, we could simply be watching a universe that expands and contracts. Nothing of a “start” involved at all.)
I do agree we need to allow some epistemic doubt to move forward in practical matters. However I think the questions being raised here are of a profoundly epistemic nature. Is the start of the universe even knowable? I think holding this question to a higher standard of proof is appropriate.
March 12, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Arturo, formal arguments can prove explanatory regarding reality if their premesis are supported by experience and observation. If this were not so, they would have been discarded as knowledge tools long ago. It’s this connection to experiential reality that places the KCA in a higher plane than the epistemological skepticism of Hume, though both have elements of formal argumentation.
Suby, I recommend checking out http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/theism-origin.html , as it touches on many of the subjects you bring up.
FFtO, we’ll have to just let go of the “ignorance” thing, it’s a minor semantic issue. You’re making really good points, and all I can say is read http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/theism-origin.html to see some examples of the effects for which you’re looking. Your point about holding this question to a higher standard is something I’ll have to consider.
March 12, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Poppies,
“…formal arguments can prove explanatory regarding relaity if their premises are supported by experience and observation.”
There are two points that David Hume addresses specifically in his Enquiry, (i) formal arguments are EXPLANATORY not LEGISLATIVE, that is, they cannot legislate what exists or does not exist. Matters of fact (the existence of a chair, god…etc) can always be proven wrong and (ii) Hume shows that causality and necessity CANNOT be demonstrated by experience or observation. There is a fundamental divorce between cause and effect and all such “support” is mere inference.
March 12, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Hume is entertaining and brilliant, but seriously, as fitnessfortheoccassion said “we need to allow some epistemic doubt to move forward in practical matters.” Causality is the basis for most rational inquiry. We’ve all read the Hume quote “I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a Cause”.
Yes, it’s technically possible that perhaps the chair which has so faithfully supported me all these sittings will inexplicably turn to steam beneath me, but we either have to live with probabilities based on experience and causality (which have proven awfully useful for creating theories that end up being highly explanatory and useful to progress) or live in an utter skepticism that allows for no progress at all.
March 12, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Poppies,
You see the problem is that you are confusing two things: practically and formality. I think we can all agree that the Kalam cosmological argument is a formal argument. Therefore we analyze it in the light of formality. Why do you think that David Hume wrote his Enquiry? Did he just want to waste our time? I doubt it. Most likely it was to show that while many of these concerns need not preocuppy us in every day life they need to be brought up whenever someone tries to act as if they could establish them formally. Since the Kalam cosmological argument tries to do just that we must examine in it that light. If the Kalam cosmological argument was called the Kalam practical argument we would not be having this discussion because we all know and acknowledge that practicality is divorced from the truth of the matter.
March 12, 2007 at 9:53 pm
It ultimately IS a practical argument, because it takes what we experience “practically” in everyday life, and makes justified extrapolations. Hume doesn’t justify his skepticism of such extrapolations.
On a side note, you’ve spent quite a bit of time on this blog, and since I assume your time is also valuable, I just want to say thanks. Perhaps you’ll convince me of your points yet, but even if not, I certainly grow from the experience.
March 13, 2007 at 9:44 am
Poppies,
“Hume doesn’t justify his skepticism of such extrapolations.”
Actually he does. There is one particular point that he establishes pretty clearly mainly that contingency is a subjective category in the mind that does not extend into the real world by necessity. He justifies his skepticism in the following manner: He is skeptical of what we can KNOW about the real world through formal deductive processes. He is very clear about his distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact– the existence of god would be a matter of fact. It cannot be proven necessary by deduction, it can always be wrong.
March 13, 2007 at 9:46 am
By the way, thank you for your comment. Time spent discussing is time well spent.
March 13, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Let’s see how Hume “justifies” his skepticism:
- He starts with a general principle (all human knowledge is divided into relations of ideas and matters of fact)
- He deduces a truth claim from this principle (relations of ideas can be described with certitude, matters of fact can always be disproven)
So ultimately, Hume claims a necessary contingency justifies his skepticism of necessary contingency. Why shouldn’t I be skeptical of his claim?
March 13, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Poppies,
Maybe I have been skipping some of my logic classes but exactly where is the “necessary contingency” which you say that Hume uses to justify his skepticism of necessary contingencies? His justification for skepticism of necessary contingencies is actually quite simple: the categories of necessity and cause are in our minds, they are the way WE understand things, and they need not be a part of the real world.
March 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm
You ask a good question, I don’t think I was quite clear; I’ll try to explain in a more direct fashion.
Hume’s argument can basically be stated:
(1) If the categories of necessity and cause are in our minds, we are justified in thoroughgoing skepticism regarding necessary contingencies.
(2) The categories of necessity and cause are in our minds.
(3) :. We are justified in thoroughgoing skepticism regarding necessary contingencies.
(3) is necessarily contingent on (1) and (2). I think there’s great evidence that (2) is erroneous, but even if this argument were sound, it would be self-refuting.
March 14, 2007 at 7:59 am
Poppies,
The problem is that you are equivocating. Necessary contingency in terms of formal argument does not mean necessary contingency in terms of reality. Hume makes the distinction between relations of ideas (formal arguments:necessary) and matters of fact (reality: contingent) The argument is about what we can KNOW not about what IS.
By the way, your restructuring of Hume’s argument is not faithful to Hume. I think a more accurate version looks something like this:
(1) Causation is inferred from experience.
(2) Inferrential deductions are not necessary.
(3) :. The inferrence, causation, is contingent.
Stated more simply: just because our experience in the world tells us that causation exists it does not follow formally that causation exists– in fact, causation is just another inference like “the sun will rise tomorrow” or “the universe will not blink out of existence in the next five minutes” etc. We INFER causation, we have not PROVEN it.
March 14, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I can’t imagine how you think I’m equivocating, I don’t know how I could be more clear or direct. You don’t seem to understand that Hume’s distinctions are arrived at through a path he himself claims is practically invalid.
You say “necessary contingency in terms of formal argument does not mean necessary contingency in terms of reality”, and my point is, if this is the case, Hume’s distinctions and principles of skepticism, which are based on formal arguments, may not be in accordance with reality. He tramples the only evidence that could justify his position.
Your “more accurate” version of Hume’s argument makes unjustified leaps, and still relies on contingencies, so the fatal problem is still not avoided.
March 14, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Poppies,
I think you are misunderstanding Hume, but at any rate in philosophy we have something called the “principle of charity” which states that when interpreting a philosopher you take extra pains to make their position seem justifiable. Your reconstruction of Hume, frankly, is a straw man.
“Hume’s distinctions and principles of skepticism which are based on formal arguments, may not be be in accordance with reality”
That is the entire point! He does not mean his principles to be in accordance with reality, he means to show that NO formal principles can lbe provably in accordance with reality. He establishes that we cannot determine, with our minds, whether contingency and necessity are parts of reality– he makes the premises for the Kalam cosmological argument invalid.
By the way, how does my argument make “unjustified leaps”? I’ve only been doing formal logic for a couple of years now, but according to me my argument has the following form:
(1) If x is an inferential deduction x is not provably a part of reality.
(2) Causation is an inferential deduction.
(3) :. Causation is not provably a part of reality.
OR
(1) A –> B
(2) A
(3) B
Seems like simple Modus Ponens to me. Maybe my first version confused the scope of the vested quantifiers? I don’t think so, my second argument has the same vested quantifiers– it seems fine– any reasonable person could have seen what it meant and that it was valid.
March 14, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Maybe I’m off my rocker here, but the issue seems so clear to me that I don’t understand how you’re missing it. I must seriously consider that perhaps I’m misunderstanding something foundational, because though you strike me as unneccesarily antagonistic, you don’t seem intellectually deficient.
Hume is making an inferential deduction to disprove inferential deductions, which is self refuting. I don’t know how to say it more simply. If he doesn’t mean his principles to be in accordance with reality, we who live in reality are justified in ignoring them. He’s making a truth claim, a claim about how reality works: in cases of inferential deduction, in all places and at all times, the results cannot be proven. And what does Hume offer as justification of his truth claim?: an inferential deduction, which he earlier argued is not fit for justification purposes. He’s trying to bridge the chasm between formality and practicality that he himself dug.
Regarding your formal argument, I was referring to unsound leaps, not invalid leaps. I think it best to not waste our time going down that rabbit trail. Let’s try to stay focused.
March 14, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Poppies,
Maybe you are off your rocker. =). “Hume is making an inferential deduction to disprove inferential deductions which is self refuting” No. Hume is making a formal argument ABOUT inferential deductions not an inferential argument about inferential deductions. As you surely know inferential arguments are of the form
A is B
B is B
C is B
.
.
.
:. Vx. x=x –> Bx
Hume’s argument is most certainly NOT an inferential deduction, it is strictly formal. He means his principles to apply to what we can strictly KNOW about reality not about what reality is or is not (that is the very thing in question). Regarding my formal argument how is it unsound?
March 14, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Okay, let’s try this again.
Formal logic is the symbolic representation of items and relationships. Formal logic is practically neutral, as you’ve mentioned, explanatory, but not legislative. One cannot use a STRICTLY formal argument to undergird a truth claim. To say, practically, that inferential deductions cannot be justified is a truth claim.
You are using the formal arguments of Hume as your practical justification for denying inferential deduction. It’s as if Hume is writing down H2O and you’re trying to drink his “water”.
I’m really going to have to put an end to this comment thread soon; despite my appreciation for the time you’re putting in, I feel we’re reaching a clear breakdown in progress made towards either of us convincing the other. I’d like to put my time to better use.
March 15, 2007 at 9:35 am
Poppies,
Basically what happens is that when you reach a point where you should reasonably cede in your arguments you claim that “your time is too valuable.” This is unfortunate, considering that you claim to be reasonable and willing to change your mind. You have, however, been unable to see the reason why the Kalam cosmological argument or other arguments of the form fail. We are chasing two argument here and it is better to separate them.
(1) The Kalam cosmological argument is formal. Formal arguments cannot prove anything about reality. Me coming up with a formally valid theory of gravity does not make the universe conform to my theory. Me saying that there cannot be infinite chains of cause or that the universe needs a cause does not mean that the universe turns around and says “Hey, Arturo just proved that I can’t do something, hence I can’t do it.” To hold that formal arguments influence the universe is silly.
(2) What you are obscuring is the following “that inferential deduction cannot be justified is a truth claim” Yes, but what Hume is claiming is the following “that inferential deduction cannot be justified as being necessary is a truth claim” and he proves this. I am not using a formal argument to deny inferential deduction I am using a formal argument to prove that inferential deduction is not formal. Whether or not inferential deduction works is not in question. What is in question is whether or not we can say that something is NECESSARY from an inferential deduction. Sadly, the answer is no.
March 15, 2007 at 4:42 pm
It’s unfortunate that you feel the need to question my motives.
I contrarily believe that we’ve arrived at a point where you should reasonably cede in your arguments. Since I don’t know of anyone who could act as an objective arbiter in this case, I think we’ll have to end things here. If you know of someone who you could put forth as an objective arbiter, I’m happy to hear the case.
I’ll leave off with my final counterpoints.
The KCA, and Hume’s argument for scepticism regarding the power of inferential deductions to show necessity, are both arguments that claim to prove something about reality. Of course, formal arguments don’t influence anything, they simply provide a technical framework for understanding which may or may not correspond accurately to reality, depending on how justified by evidence the premises underlying the formal argument are. I think the evidence shows that Hume’s argument does not correspond accurately to reality, and the KCA does.
Thanks very much for your time Arturo. In all seriousness I offer my appreciation.
March 15, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Poppies,
Thank you. My final response then is as follows: “I think the evidence shows that Hume’s argument does not correspond accurately to reality and the KCA does.”
Humes argument shows that no amount of evidence can ever make KCA conform to or prove anything about reality. Hume’s argument is an argument about arguments– maybe this was not clear to you. I don’t know how to make it any clearer or simpler than that. At any rate, it has been fun.
– Arturo
March 21, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Hello my fellow bloggers,
I am a mere passer-by, so forgive any ignorance that I possess about the comments at had.
I have recently reviewed this argument and I must say it provides some compelling logic. Hume’s criticism is only moderately effective in thwarting this argument. However, I enjoyed that argument provided by fitnessfortheoccasion. He pointed out that the argument commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance, which it dose. However, so dose David Hume when he basically states that because we have experience of causation means that it hasn’t been proven. Is like saying no one has ever proven the existence of X so there for X cannot exist.
I think that the argument Kalam C. is based upon time->causal chain. As described in ”A Brief History of Time’, (by Stephen Hawkins)
There exist four-geometries, or Euclidean histories of the universe that make up the path integral, have no precise initial times, so in a certain sense they have no beginning (though they do not have an infinite age either, but rather time loses its usually assumed character of being a real variable that runs along The real line either from minus infinity or from a finite beginning) and by that theory (although largely supported by Einstein’s theory of quantum time) the only conclusions that follow are: there was a restarted or “loop effect,” or 2. Universal time has no beginning or no first causal event.
From the work of Stephen hawkens we can conclude the following:
1. If Time has no precise initial time, then it cannot have an uncaused cause that commenced the liner motion of time.
2. Time has an infinite end and an infinite beginning
3. Therefore, it is not possible to have an uncaused cause.
1. If an uncased cause is the result of itself then nothing else could have existed to cause its existence. (premise)
2. If there was nothing in existence, then it is implausible to have the occurrence of a cause.(1)
3. An uncaused cause is a cause. (premise)
4. Therefore, an uncaused cause cannot exist. 1-3
-john