There is an argument for the existence of god known as the Cosmological argument. The argument posits a logical necessity for an uncaused first cause, that the universe requires a creator since it was created. Here is a version of the argument popularized by Chritian apologist William Lane Craig:
From Wikipedia
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The Universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
Craig explains, by nature of the event (the Universe coming into existence), attributes unique to (the concept of) God must also be attributed to the cause of this event, including but not limited to: omnipotence, Creator, being eternal and absolute self-sufficiency. Since these attributes are unique to God, anything with these attributes must be God. Something does have these attributes: the cause; hence, the cause is God, the cause exists; hence, God exists.
Craig defends the second premise, that the Universe had a beginning starting with Al-Ghazali's proof that an actual infinite is impossible. However, If the universe never had a beginning then there indeed would be an actual infinite, an infinite amount of cause and effect events. Hence, the Universe had a beginning.
There are two large errors with this argument. We don't know that the universe or existence had a beginning with any certainty. This argument also makes a pretty strong textbook example of special pleading.
Regardless of what William Lane Craig and others may say there is no established demonstrable truth that the universe which would encompass all of existence had a beginning. Even inflationary cosmology and the big bang theory dares not make assertions regarding the genesis of existence. To assert anything as known or necessary about the origin of existence is disingenuous.
The argument also makes a formal logical fallacy of special pleading. To say that the universe requires a cause but that cause does not require one has not been justified. If the first cause can be uncaused then there is also the option that the universe and existence can be uncaused. Perhaps this universe we see is the uncaused cause of everything that follows.
Lastly even if one were to yield that the universe requires an uncaused cause this argument does nothing to establish the requirement of a conscious living god. To use this argument to assert any sort of conscious deity that meddles in human affairs is completely unjustified.
Do you think you can make a stronger argument for an uncaused first cause than what I quoted? Please do so in the comments and I will respond.
If you enjoyed this post you may like my previous post Truth Seeking and the Problem with Trusting Personal Experience
Photo sources: Reasonablefaith.org, Pixabay.com, Godisreal.today
The logical assumption of denying intelligent design is that incredible precision and order came from not just chaos, but a massive explosion. There is no example of this anyplace in creation. Entropy seems to be tossed aside for those who deny ID.
The argument of an original originator is perfectly logical. There is no hypothesis with a stronger scientific basis. All is based on ideas, postulation and assumption. That's not bad. It's all there is, other than embracing ID.
Interesting that you shift the burden of proof. Why shouldn't ID be denied given there is not evidence for it to begin with?
The burden of proof is born by the claimant. It goes both ways.
Order, in every single science except creation, dictates some sort of orderer, system or something to, at the very least, cause it. There is always cause and effect. There are always laws that are studied and dependent upon.
You see a footprint, a sign of order, and you know a human was there. You see a complex organism and claim that it's a result of chance and accident in defiance of the the second law of thermodynamics. This is not science.
If you choose not to believe in ID, that's an understandable decision. But, just like the big bang hypothesis, it is not based on scientific evidence. It's based on assumptions and surmising.
" It goes both ways."
No it doesn't. I'm not claiming one way or the other and have no burden of proof. I'm pointing out that there is a massive flaw in the argument making the positive claims. The flaws in the argument exist regardless of any lack of proof for alternative theories. God isn't the default answer for everything.
You haven't made a compelling argument. Just saying, "hey look at stuff, gee whiz it's complex must be designed" isn't evidence for design. The laws of thermodynamics appear to be intact despite the minuscule drop in entropy you experience anecdotally.
Would you care to take another shot? Maybe this time actually focus on the bad argument from the post above and it's weaknesses instead of distracting with alternatives.
No. I'm more than happy to have a polite discussion and disagree. But I won't bother engaging with your condescension.
I'm sorry you feel it's condescension. I feel you are being dishonest to avoid the actual weaknesses being presented.
Feelings are subjective and not really applicable. It's possible to consider these things objectively.
Look at the difference in the way you communicated to me and the way I communicated to you. I made statements that disagreed with you, but didn't demean you directly. You make derogatory statements that denigrated my character. It's a somewhat veiled ad hominem attack that generally follows a lack of clear argumentation (just an observation, not an accusation). I've been debating people about this topic for a couple of decades. I understand it quite well. Yet I still offer you the respect of being a human who has to wrestle with these things for yourself. You didn't didn't return the favor at all. It's one of the worst forms of debate, and not worth entering into.
I'll leave this quote of your condescension here for your contemplation; "You haven't made a compelling argument. Just saying, "hey look at stuff, gee whiz it's complex must be designed" isn't evidence for design. The laws of thermodynamics appear to be intact despite the minuscule drop in entropy you experience anecdotally.
"Would you care to take another shot? Maybe this time actually focus on the bad argument from the post above and it's weaknesses instead of distracting with alternatives."
You need to grow some thicker skin. I would think after decades you would have done so. What I wrote is hardly offensive unless you are overly attached to your flawed arguments. It's possible to consider what I wrote objectively an not take offense.
"You made an argument from ignorance propped up with a false dichotomy." I find that sentence to be harsher than what I wrote previously but if you find it less condescending the message is the same.
Once again you are still choosing to avoid any actual debate on the topic at hand. I find your tactic of distraction to be dishonest. I mean you still haven't addressed the two points made in the original post.
I'd wager after decades of debating this topic you've had these objective arguments presented before and your flawed rebuttal dismantled many times over. Instead of making an on-topic counter argument you've waxed poetically with sophistry.
I'm not your enemy, yet you seem to go after the person rather than the points made. I don't really need to grow thicker skin. I'm not offended at all. I just don't bother with what comes across as pompous rhetoric.
You accuse me of not engaging, yet you haven't really engaged with my original comment in any meaningful way, other than in an insulting manner. Then you start playing games rather than grasping that common decency in these discussions goes a long way. When watching/listening to good debates, notice how well the debaters stay on topic, point out the argument itself, and generally avoid any advance toward the other person's integrity or personal character. I was hoping to influence you to show mutual respect.
Because one can respond in a harsher manner hardly negates having done so. I provided a longer response under @steevc's comment, in case it's of interest.
You have assumed that you made a decent argument in the OP. But, again, while understandable, it wasn't really convincing. You also asked for people to engage, which I have tried to do in a meaningful and respectful manner. You go on to state that you don't take a position. But you must, by default, even if it's simply to refute any claims of ID. Yet the idea of ID is one that is completely impossible to disprove.
In an effort to oblige and move the discussion back OT -
The order around us, along with the principles of irreducible complexity and specific complexity, plus the laws of thermodynamics, testify of design. If you refuse to accept that, as I noted earlier, it's entirely understandable. But such denial isn't really science based. As noted in my response to stevc, even many who attempt to refute ID are stuck with some sort of origin dilemma.
If you have a position to claim, then perhaps that could be engaged on as well. However, unless I'm mistaken, it seems like you're more focused on making a claim against something than for anything.
Part of the challenge is that "creation" is not observable. It's a historical science, so must be approached based on post de-facto evidence. The order of creation testifies of a creator. You deny that this is true. That's fine. I'm not bent on convincing you. I just disagree.
It cannot be disproven either. Any claims to have done so are disingenuous, at best.
If you are in a place of just wondering, then good for you. If you are an atheist (a logical assumption from the title), then you are making a claim that there is no God - an unprovable. If you're searching or wondering, then I salute your intellectual honesty. Perhaps you are agnostic?
Regardless, we won't get anywhere. What I claim is self-evident you refute with your own perspective. Continuing dialogue probably won't make a difference.
"It cannot be disproven either. "
The burden is on you to prove it not for others to disprove it. I must state again that god and a creator are not a default answer.
" then you are making a claim that there is no God"
I know you wish that were the case but it isn't. Get over it already and stop trying to force beliefs on to people in an effort to make your own false beliefs seem more reasonable. It's annoying and childish.
I accept your tacit surrender.
You stated that a 'complex organism cannot be the result of chance and accident in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics.'
Yet, if we look at the second law:
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process.
We see that it requires an isolated system, one with no inputs or outputs. Assuming we are talking about Earth, the only place we've confirmed the existence of complex organisms, the second law does not apply because it is not an isolated system. The Sun bathes Earth in " 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year." source. Which is a great deal of input energy more than enough to overcome local entropy.
The footprint example also fails as there are many things that could look like a footprint but not be caused by a foot. A rolling log might have left the imprint, or someone used their hands to draw a footprint in the sand.
A useful tool known as 'Hitchen's Razor' states, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
So bring some evidence, or be dismissed without it.
Be dismissed?
Is it a habit for atheists to be rude to people who disagree with them?
Again you feign offense rather than rebut with evidence or a counter argument.
Is that an ad hominem attack?
I was referring to your ideas and claims, but those seem so tightly a part of your identity that it really doesn't matter if I was referring to the claims or not, you would have taken offense.
You still haven't provided any evidence nor addressed how your claims were rebutted. Nor addressed the original posts arguements.
" the one answer that is most logical. "
My post uses logic. Would you care to address that logic?
I haven't put anyone down over anything. I've pointed out that their arguments lack any substance.
I paraphrased an argument from ignorance. "hey look at stuff, gee whiz it's complex must be designed" that is what an argument from ignorance is. If having that pointed out to you is offensive then one should really have a long think about making that argument in the future.
NOBODY knows how the universe was formed, how life came to this planet or where it came from. Science attempts to explain, however what it comes up with are admittedly called theories BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW. Only religious folks claim they have the answer, even though all they have are subjective claims that can't even hold a candle to any scientific theories which are at least backed up by direct observation and peer reviewed. Religion has nothing but archaic religious documents full of stories written by men that did not know where the sun went at night about people that they never met and had been long dead.
I'm with you. Even as a Christian I will totally agree that outside of belief in "God said..." being the beginning point, that you are totally correct in
"We don't know that the universe or existence had a beginning with any certainty. This argument also makes a pretty strong textbook example of special pleading" and your other arguments outlined here. I do not think that the apologist you quote has a sufficient argument, especially in light of what else you pointed out. Good post cj, I'll follow to see what else you post over time.
Yup religious apologists overall can't think clearly to justify their beliefs as "truth". Not that they are the only ones who don't, as if atheists can't, because atheists can make logical fallacies as well, but religionists are in another category all together lol.
By the same logic God must have had a 'cause' and then you are stuck in an infinite loop. I can't claim to understand all the science that has been thought up to explain this, but I think it has a better basis than imaginary beings. People can believe what they want if it makes them happy, but trust science to actually get results.
Peace
These thoughts must be considered. In the end, perhaps they simply lead to more questions. But they can be addressed initially.
The argument of creationists is that there is one original originator. Science would back up that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. The opposite also stands true - for every reaction, there must be an equal and opposite action. Creation is some form of reaction.
There is a sense in which any perspective must be circular. For deists, this circle always returns to God, even if they embrace some form of the big bang and evolution. For creationists, it's more obvious that the circle embraces God. For the atheist, the circle must at some point embrace chance and accident. The position that not creator can exist must rely on all "creation" being a huge accident, which makes each one of us an accident as well.
Science depends upon laws so that it can answer the questions about what we see. It's limited and bound within these laws. When it offers a hypotheses that defies the laws of order, eventually the hypothesis dies.
With creation/evolution/big-bang/ex-nihilo arguments, there is no reference for us. There is no example. Scientists attempt to come up with ideas, but none of them are provable. And every single hypothesis that explains away creation ex nihilo has a counter argument that is, at the very least, every bit as valid.
Science will never give us all the answers. We shouldn't expect it to. It can't tell us when the soul starts to exist. Neither can the Bible. All we know is that it does exist. Science can't mend a broken heart or comfort the downtrodden. Only love can. And no creature on earth can love like a human - those created to bear the image of their Creator.
Everyone depends on science. For the creationists, science is a wonderful opportunity to study what God has done. And they see the order and consistencies of what God has done as a reflection of who He is.
Both Dawkins and Bill Nye have gone on record as claiming that God does not exist. Both have admitted that there has to be some form of originator for life on earth. But they both suspect that it's some form of alien. So, on one hand, you have a group of people with a written record about creation that can't possibly be right (even though it is central to the study of history - is history a science?) and on the other men deny this written record and come up with "imaginary beings" to explain doing so. Of course, they don't have any evidence of their existence or even bother to postulate on where these aliens came from, other than that they must come from an even more intelligent being. This begs what should be the obvious question, "Which takes more faith?"
"The argument of creationists is that there is one original originator. Science would back up that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction."
False, cause and effect would just mean this originator requires a cause as well. The second you try and break this chain of infinite regress you are committing special pleading. You must invalidate the concept of cause and effect to make any argument for an uncaused cause.
If your god can exist without being created then the universe can exist without being created.
"For the atheist, the circle must at some point embrace chance and accident. "
False, you are arguing against a straw man. Please stop mandating what opponents to your reasoning must think as some sort of framework on which to prop up your own god hypothesis. It's very telling that you seem entirely unable to do this.
God is not the default answer and won't be proven true by proving something else wrong. You are approaching this from a fallacious angle.
At this point I'm not sure how to explain this to you without you complaining that I'm being condescending. You just keep making the same fallacious argument from ignorance. Say something related to the two major points I wrote about in the post. If you continue to respond here and keep repeating this fallacious line of argument I will respond with actual condescension and mockery.
Maybe
Thanks @noganoo. I offered another response in this thread too. Hopefully it's helpful.
the most profound philosophical question: why is there something rather than nothing? Think about it :)
BTW, no "e" in argument - in your title - that's the prob with teaching for 35 yrs...
just sayin' ...LOL!!