Sunday, July 8, 2012

Feser on the cosmological argument and the beginning of the universe

The cosmological argument: dominoes in a series of simultaneous causation, not causation extended in time.
From Ed Feser's great post on the pitiful lack of insight by atheists on the cosmological argument for God's existence. Feser points out that the most common atheist 'retorts' to the cosmological argument are nonsense, and serve merely to point out the philosophical illiteracy or mere intellectual laziness of atheists.


As a primer, my earlier post on Aquinas' First Way, which is one version of the cosmological argument, is here.

Feser:






3. “Why assume that the universe had a beginning?” is not a serious objection to the argument.


The reason this is not a serious objection is that no version of the cosmological argument assumes this at all. Of course, the kalām cosmological argument does claim that the universe had a beginning, but it doesn’t merely assume it. Rather, the whole point of that version of the cosmological argument is to establish through detailed argument that the universe must have had a beginning. You can try to rebut those arguments, but to pretend that one can dismiss the argument merely by raising the possibility of an infinite series of universes (say) is to miss the whole point.


The main reason this is a bad objection, though, is that most versions of the cosmological argument do not even claim that the universe had a beginning. Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, Thomistic, and Leibnizian cosmological arguments are all concerned to show that there must be an uncaused cause even if the universe has always existed. Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.


In fact, Aquinas rather famously rejected what is now known as thekalām argument. He did not think that the claim that the universe had a beginning could be established through philosophical arguments. He thought it could be known only via divine revelation, and thus was not suitable for use in trying to establish God’s existence. (Here, by the way, is another basic test of competence to speak on this subject. Any critic of the Five Ways who claims that Aquinas was trying to show that the universe had a beginning and that God caused that beginning – as Richard Dawkins does in his comments on the Third Way in The God Delusion – infallibly demonstrates thereby that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.)

Feser observes that the 'cause' invoked in the cosmological argument is not the cause of a temporal beginning of the universe, but the cause for the existence of the universe at every moment, including now. The dominoes of the cosmological argument are a arrayed in a string of simultaneous causation, not causation extended in time. It addresses 'cause' as the reason for existence of each thing at every moment, not 'cause' of the first thing in a temporal sequence. Aquinas and nearly all others who formulated important versions of the cosmological argument assumed a universe eternal in the past.

The cosmological argument has nothing-- nothing-- to do with the Big Bang.

Nearly all atheist 'retorts' to the cosmological argument get this rudimentary part of the argument wrong. They understand nothing of the actual argument, and nothing even of its premises.


16 comments:

  1. The dominoes of the cosmological argument are a arrayed in a string of simultaneous causation, not causation extended in time.

    Pure babbling suitable only for idiots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not just admit that you don't understand the concept? The notion of priority in causation, not extended in time, is ancient and fundamental to philosophy. One application of it is the question of what holds things in existence from moment to moment? Thoughtful people have asked that question for millennia.

      You don't understand the question, let alone the answer, and you clearly have no intention of trying.

      You must be an atheist.

      Delete
    2. Thoughtful people have asked wrong questions before. The curent lack of interest to the cosmological argument, even among professional philosophers, is an indication that this line of thought has fallen into irrelevance. Aristotle and Aquinas used to be interesting in their own days, but people have found better ways to acquire knowledge since then.

      Delete
    3. On the other hand, fools which wish to pretend to be thoughtful are very skilled at ignoring the right questions.

      Delete
    4. Michael,

      Oh, I see now. One of God's jobs is to maintain the existence of each and every particle in the Universe from Planck time to Planck time, with its 10^11 galaxies and 10^22 stars in the part we can see.

      He's one very busy deity. No wonder he doesn't answer prayers and took 200,000 years, at least of human existence, before deciding to send Himself as His son, to sacrifice Himself to Himself to cancel out His anger at humans.

      If this is sophisticated philosophy, I want nothing to do with it.

      Delete
    5. bach;

      You've made your lack of engagement with the argument quite obvious.

      Cosmological arguments can be understood by natural reason. Anyone with the intellectual capacity to do so can understand it, and failure to engage it is deliberate error.

      Jesus' Incarnation and Atonement for our sins is revealed truth, and cannot be inferred just by reason. You have to open your heart to see it.

      Delete
    6. Michael,

      So a mountain will cease existing if God ceases to exist? Nonsense.

      Harry Potter is revealed truth too. As much as I'd like to believe it, there's more morality there than in the Bible, I know it's fiction.

      No, I don't want to open my heart. 'Alien' has put me off that imagery.

      Delete
    7. “You're right. Christians who make that argument don't understand Aristotle's Unmoved Mover argument or Aquinas' First and Second Ways”

      News flash: As far as I can see it’s only Christians that make that argument. Christians always conclude the Unmoved Mover is their God.

      Feser knows his target audience when he bashes atheists for a misunderstanding what you admit is misunderstood by Christians as well. To say that Dawkins is ignorant when he is simply addressing what is the common Christian interpretation says more about the ignorance of Christians than it does of Dawkins.

      -KW

      Delete
    8. Feser observes that the 'cause' invoked in the cosmological argument is not the cause of a temporal beginning of the universe, but the cause for the existence of the universe at every moment, including now.

      So, what causes the existence of that 'cause', at every moment, including now?

      Delete
    9. One can't understand idiotic babblers like Feser and Egnor because nonsense uttered by fools pretending to be wise. The rest of us just roll our eyes and sigh.

      Delete
  2. "When [Aquinas] argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, ..."

    Ironically, Ayn Rand -- in her vain attempt to get rid of God by "explaining" that what exists exists because “Existence exists” -- was presenting the same argument.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “Any critic of the Five Ways who claims that Aquinas was trying to show that the universe had a beginning and that God caused that beginning – as Richard Dawkins does in his comments on the Third Way in The God Delusion – infallibly demonstrates thereby that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.”

    If the above statement is true, it must also be true that all the Christians who claim the Five Ways show that God created the universe don’t know what there’re talking about. You can’t have it both ways.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right. Christians who make that argument don't understand Aristotle's Unmoved Mover argument or Aquinas' First and Second Ways.

      Aquinas' Third Way-- the proof from Necessary Existence-- can be interpreted as invoking a moment of creation.

      Aquinas's first three ways are each variants of the cosmological argument., which is a group of arguments.

      Delete
    2. Yet, has anyone ever actually *seen* a Christian claim that the Five Ways show that God created the universe in the way that the Anonymouse means 'create'?

      Delete
  4. “there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, ..."

    God is the higgs field? No wonder they call the higgs boson the “God particle”

    ReplyDelete
  5. "While most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, the majority of Western intellectuals today no longer considers theological knowledge to be possible. The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." - William Lane Craig

    ReplyDelete