Select problems with Craigian cosmology
[sup]
The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe by William Lane Craig
The Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig
[/sup]
Spacetime is an aspect of the universe, and "before time" is incoherent. Causation is temporal, and "a cause of causation" is incoherent.
1. whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. causation began to exist
3. therefore causation has a cause of its existence ?
Such ? lines of reasoning obviously requires delineation.
An atemporal, "eternal" cause of a universe that has a definite age (like 14 billion years) is incompatible with the principle of sufficient reason, since such a cause lead us to expect an infinite age of the universe — there's no sufficient reason that the universe is 14 billion years old and not some other age, any other age in fact. Therefore, the principle of sufficient reason and the like are not applicable in this case. Premise 1 is a special case of the principle.
If there was a definite earliest time (or "time zero"), then anything that existed at that time, began to exist at that time, and that includes any first causes, deities, or whatever else. Otherwise, time is unparsimoniously multiplied, perhaps adding ("orthogonal") temporal dimensions.
[quote=The Confessions (400) by Augustine]How, then, shall I respond to him who asks, "What was God doing before he made heaven and earth?" I do not answer, as a certain one is reported to have done facetiously (shrugging off the force of the question). "He was preparing hell," he said, "for those who pry too deep."[/quote]
"Atemporal" mind is incoherent in the first place. In fact, findings go roughly in the exact opposite direction, mind (experiences, un/consciousness, etc) is temporal. Mind "creating" time/temporality is nonsense.
1. if some deity could create something out of "nothing", as it were, then ex nihilo nihil fit is already violated, and we might as well dispose of the principle, in which case said deity is an extraneous hypothesis
2. if some deity created the universe from something already existing, then whatever comprise the universe "always" existed, perhaps "eternally" (to the extent that's meaningful), and we might as well dispose of the extras, including said deity
3. therefore said deity is neither implied nor necessary, and may be disregarded by parsimony as a matter of faith alone (which is fine for what it is, anyone is free to believe whatever)
? Special pleading no good. Unless something else is supposed (cf Bible Genesis 1, Quran 2:117)?
Supernatural magic could (literally) be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing. Might as well be replaced with "don't know", which incurs no information loss. Cannot readily be exemplified (verified), cannot derive anything, and has been falsified in plenty cases where it was raised in the past. A non-explanation in the first place.
Causation grants no extrapolation to any "beyond", which would be a sleight of hand move.
[quote=On the Causal Completeness of Physics (2006) by Agustín Vicente]every physical effect (i.e. caused event) has physical sufficient causes[/quote]
Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World:
The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe by William Lane Craig
The Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig
[/sup]
Spacetime is an aspect of the universe, and "before time" is incoherent. Causation is temporal, and "a cause of causation" is incoherent.
1. whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. causation began to exist
3. therefore causation has a cause of its existence ?
Such ? lines of reasoning obviously requires delineation.
An atemporal, "eternal" cause of a universe that has a definite age (like 14 billion years) is incompatible with the principle of sufficient reason, since such a cause lead us to expect an infinite age of the universe — there's no sufficient reason that the universe is 14 billion years old and not some other age, any other age in fact. Therefore, the principle of sufficient reason and the like are not applicable in this case. Premise 1 is a special case of the principle.
If there was a definite earliest time (or "time zero"), then anything that existed at that time, began to exist at that time, and that includes any first causes, deities, or whatever else. Otherwise, time is unparsimoniously multiplied, perhaps adding ("orthogonal") temporal dimensions.
[quote=The Confessions (400) by Augustine]How, then, shall I respond to him who asks, "What was God doing before he made heaven and earth?" I do not answer, as a certain one is reported to have done facetiously (shrugging off the force of the question). "He was preparing hell," he said, "for those who pry too deep."[/quote]
"Atemporal" mind is incoherent in the first place. In fact, findings go roughly in the exact opposite direction, mind (experiences, un/consciousness, etc) is temporal. Mind "creating" time/temporality is nonsense.
1. if some deity could create something out of "nothing", as it were, then ex nihilo nihil fit is already violated, and we might as well dispose of the principle, in which case said deity is an extraneous hypothesis
2. if some deity created the universe from something already existing, then whatever comprise the universe "always" existed, perhaps "eternally" (to the extent that's meaningful), and we might as well dispose of the extras, including said deity
3. therefore said deity is neither implied nor necessary, and may be disregarded by parsimony as a matter of faith alone (which is fine for what it is, anyone is free to believe whatever)
? Special pleading no good. Unless something else is supposed (cf Bible Genesis 1, Quran 2:117)?
Supernatural magic could (literally) be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing. Might as well be replaced with "don't know", which incurs no information loss. Cannot readily be exemplified (verified), cannot derive anything, and has been falsified in plenty cases where it was raised in the past. A non-explanation in the first place.
Causation grants no extrapolation to any "beyond", which would be a sleight of hand move.
[quote=On the Causal Completeness of Physics (2006) by Agustín Vicente]every physical effect (i.e. caused event) has physical sufficient causes[/quote]
Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World:
Sumerians [...] were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization
a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head [...] "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light'"
Sumerian farmers, priests, and civic administrators were not only befuddled, but also took issue with the face of God moving across the water, saying that He scared away those who were traveling to Mesopotamia to participate in their vast and intricate trade system.
Comments (5)
Does this allow for the status of 'God' as 'transcendent of time'? i.e. outside of or not bound by time? As I've noted to you previously, strictly speaking 'the transcendent' doesn't exist, as 'existence' is what 'the transcendent' is transcendent in respect to. So trying to envisage the nature of deity in this way might be a case of anthropomorphic projection.
Also, I had the idea that the argument from natural theology could be supported with reference to the so-called fine-tuning principle i.e. that what emerged from the big bang just happened to have a small number - 6, I believe - of constants or parameters essential to the formation of stars>complex matter>life. No explanation has been, or can be, found for why these numbers are 'just so' - which is one aspect of what is called 'the naturalness problem'. But as far as we can tell, it could have evolved in all kinds of random and non-life-bearing ways (which according to 'string theory' is indeed the case with respect to countless 'other universes' which we have no knowledge of.) //ps//So the fact of the existence of these constants is taken to rule out the notion that the Universe is 'accidental' or 'just happened' (which in any case hardly amounts to an explanation at all.)//
Quoting jorndoe
You do know that in current cosmology, the Universe burst into existence from an infinitesimal point in a single instant with the first phase of expansion said to be many times faster than the speed of light (which in all other cases is said to be inviolable.) Do you know that when LeMaitre first suggested this idea, it was resisted because it sounds too much like 'creation ex nihilo?' (The Pope even suggested that it supports creation, which embarassed LeMaitre as he felt that the two magisteria ought to remain non-overlapping.)
Quoting jorndoe
God is not 'some deity'. Baal, Osiris, maybe.
Quoting jorndoe
Agree! Perfectly healthy attitude.
Suppose x is defined as not spatial, "outside of space". Well, then obviously x is nowhere to be found. And x cannot have any extent, volume, area, length, or the likes, not even zero-dimensional (like a mathematical singularity).
Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then there can be no time at which x exists. And there can be no duration involved, x cannot change, or be subject to causation, cannot interact, and would be inert and lifeless.
The closest that comes to mind is abstract objects (perhaps a variety of Platonia). (As an aside, you don't define things into existence, word magic style.)
[quote=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/]An object is abstract (if and) only if it is causally inefficacious.[/quote]
I don't think that's what Craig has in mind for his deity. Unless ...
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah, this one's yours, not heading down that rabbit hole. Not particularly coherent. Equivocating, information-free linguistic constructs.
If Craig was to declare "Yahweh does not exist", then how would that be any different from atheism? Besides, I'm guessing his sales numbers would plummet. :)
The fine-tuning thing is separate. Maybe a different thread?
The transcendent nature of deity is not something I devised.
Quoting jorndoe
I wonder if logical and arithmetical principles are temporally defined?
This is somewhat incorrect, "outside of space" can be found with the appropriate conceptions. The problem here is that "mathematical singularity" is really a faulty (self-contradictory) concept. And if mathematicians would recognize this, and remove such conceptions from their lexicon we could represent true zero-dimensional existence as outside of space. The glaring problem is that mathematicians have occupied the category of non-spatial existence with their "mathematical objects" (Platonic realism), thereby leaving it impossible to let any other type of existence into this category.
Mathematicians treat numbers and other mathematical concepts as real objects, which of course have no spatial existence. This creates an artificial division between the spatial world (physical world which numbers are applied toward understanding) and the non-spatial world (the world of mathematical objects, the existence of which the mathematicians have assumed to support their axioms, and have incorporated into those axioms). This division does not properly represent the real categories of spatial and non-spatial existence, found in the real world, and thereby restricts our capacity to understand the real world.
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting jorndoe
"Outside of time", as well as "before time" can easily be understood when one considers the true nature of time. Time passes at the present. It is this process, of passing at the present, which gives reality to time. So to be within time means to have been present, and this is past. Therefore anything in the future is "before time", or "outside of time".
Charles Sanders Peirce denied the existence of God, but argued for the reality of God. Something exists if it reacts with the other like things in the environment; something is real if it has characters regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. Existence is spatio-temporal, but reality need not be. Everything that exists is real, but there are realities that do not exist (in this sense).