In Response to Known Critiques That Chris Has of the Cosmological Argument, and a few comments in reply to his response to the first part of God II

This is my reply to a passage detailing alleged problems with the cosmological argument taken from Chris' reply to my second major contribution to the original existence of God discussion. Chris says,

A self-existent universe is no less believable than a self-existent God. This is not a strictly atheist take on it, the Buddhist and Hindu religions believe this. This is not to say I'm endorsing one religion over another. I'm just trying to show that, well, as a great astronomer once said:

"As far as I know. It is the only ancient religious tradition on the Earth which talks about the right time-scale. We want to get across the concept of the right time-scale, and to show that it is not unnatural. In the West, people have the sense that what is natural is for the universe to be a few thousand years old, and that billions is indwelling, and no one can understand it. The Hindu concept is very clear. Here is a great world culture which has always talked about billions of years."

"Finally, the many billion year time-scale of Hindu cosmology is not the entire history of the universe, but just the day and night of Brahma, and there is the idea of an infinite cycle of births and deaths and an infinite number of universes, each with its own gods."

-Carl Sagan

Footnote [2] of my cosmological argument argues against the possibility of transgressing the infinite. But I would also like to point out the difference between billions and infinity. No matter how large a quantity is, if it can be depicted with a number, it is finite. In my cosmological argument I do not suggest adopting a view of any definite age of our universe, or whether it is billions of years old or several thousand years old has no bearing on my argument. All that needs to be true as regards the age of the cosmos for my cosmological argument to work is that our universe not have an infinite physical history.

Sagan does mention that the Hindu billion year time-scale isn't descriptive of the entire age of our universe, so I suppose that in this passage you are arguing that because other humans have found it possible to believe in an infinite universe, then it we should not be so afraid to follow suite. Or maybe you are saying that it is not unnatural for humans to believe in an infinite universe. Perhaps you are right in this, and some humans have been able to postulate an infinite universe, but I would like to offer footnote [2] then, as evidence against this postulate for such humans to consider. In it I raise both logical and empirical arguments that the universe had a beginning. Perhaps the Hindus, along with Sagan, should reconsider the logical coherency of a universe whose physical past stretches out forever. I would also like to add a note that Hindu cosmology and soteriology is cyclical (which is precisely how they believe that it is eternal while avoiding the strict chronological infinite regress problem, although they do so at the expense of taking on the burden of a whole new set of problems), and logically depends on both reincarnation and the existence of immortal souls. Are you and Sagan prepared to grant these as well?

You also mention self-existence; so perhaps you maintaining that physical things can be self-existent. Is your view of this different from your view of infinity? My personal belief is that God is not infinite in the sense that the timeline of His existence stretches out in both directions without end. As my answer to objection one states, God is outside of time and is not susceptible to being objected to on the grounds of the impossibility of an infinite regression. In His case, self-existence is different than chronological infinity.

Perhaps then you are advocating universal self-existence just as I am advocating Divine self-existence. Alas, you do say, "A self-existent universe is no less believable than a self-existent God". My answer to objection four, and footnote [4] both address this issue, and explain why it is that God can be self-existent, while matter and energy cannot be. The simple reality is that objects that are extended in space are by necessity also extended in time. Their past cannot be infinite, as they would never approach the ontological "now". Nor can they have brought themselves into existence, for such a notion is a logical contradiction. How can matter that exists not only be the cause of its own existence, but the source of existence itself?

But an object Who is not extended in space and time, Who does not experience a series of moments, an ontological starting line, or a coming into being, may certainly be the very Fountainhead of existence itself. Such a Being may certainly be the everlasting source of even His own existence. The clever turning of the verb "to be" into the proper name "I AM" would be the way I would expect such a Being to introduce Himself.

The next objection reads,

Moving backwards in time the further back you go, the closer you get to the actual big bang, the more the laws of physics as we know them break down until they cease to apply.

The theist could easily turn this around. Why not say that the fact that the closer you get to the Big Bang, "the more the laws of physics as we know them break down until they cease to apply", should indicate that the physical laws were in the process of being created? Wouldn't the behavior of the universe in ways that deviate from physical laws be classified as a miracle? See also my answer to objection 6.

The next one is:

[The] laws of physics here and now may require causality, but in the Planck epoch or {10 to the -43rd}th of a second after the big bang and earlier it's not so clear. Also, newly emerging models of parallel worlds as well as other cycles of expansion and collapse of the oscillatory model of the universe may have physical laws are very different than they are in this universe.

This is thoroughly addressed in my answer to objection 6, and footnote [2].

Then Chris says,

Assuming for the moment that all that is had a first cause, nothing suggests that cause was a god.

This is a common objection to the cosmological argument, and I basically agree with it. The cosmological argument cannot tell us much about the creator of our universe. All we learn from it is that it is nonphysical, it created everything, and it is self-existent. According to the cosmological argument, there could be multiple nonphysical, self-existent objects, one or more of which (or whom) were involved with the causation of our universe. Calling the first cause "God" is quite a bit pretentious. Because I hope to develop my argument over the course of several months, I am simply using the conclusions of the cosmological argument as my starting place for defining "God". I have not claimed that the cosmological argument proves the Christian view of God.

Chris then says,

You state you're not making assumptions about the 'first cause' then you claim prima fascia evidence for a 'creator'. The word creator implies an intelligence entity. That's a rather large assumption.

In the version of my cosmological argument, I do cite a dictionary to ground my use of the term "creator". I don't mean to imply intelligence by this term, although I hope to go on to argue for the intelligence of the creator in later posts. If you feel that the act of creation itself implies intelligence or at least intentionality, then that is your own intuition, and perhaps you should reflect on it. I hope that the argument I developed no longer causes my evidence for a creator to fall into the category 'prima fascia', even if I end up being wrong.

Chris asks me,

"scientismists?"

"Scientismists" was meant to be two things. First, a mockery of George W., who consistently says things in the tradition of his classic "strategery", and I occasionally like to allow myself to be caught up in Bushisms. The second thing the term is supposed to be is a statement about some scientists, who believe that science is the only veridical enterprise. Such a view has been labeled "scientism", and the word "scientist" is already taken, so why not call them scientismists? I guess its not that funny, sorry. See also my reply to your comments about science quoted below.

Chris next comment in the course of our discourse is,

I've run into many explicitly non-Christians who talk about an afterlife but I never met anyone who claims to be an atheist that does.

I don't really mean to get into arguments over whether or not some atheists make claims about the afterlife. But I am enjoying the general ebb and flow of our conversation, and although this post will inevitably be long, I would like to make a comment.

I think you misinterpreted me. I didn't mean to say that a lot of atheists make claims about what the afterlife will be like. I meant to say that a lot of atheists make claims about the afterlife based on science (e.g. "there is no afterlife"). I guess what interests me is that modern science often qualifies itself as only responsible for handling physical data. If souls are nonphysical, how can one object to belief in their existence or that they persist after death, based solely on science? It seems their analysis lies outside the domain of physical science.

Although only semi-related, I thought I would drop in a quotation of an atheist on the topic. I find the first paragraph of the quotation interestingly in support of premise (4) of my cosmological argument.

And now as to life after death. Endless life after death would be a form of infinity, and for actual infinities there can be no good evidence. But is there good evidence for any life after death?

A great deal of the evidence offered for life after death depends on the doctrine that there is a god, and is valueless because that doctrine is false. However, some people have believed that there is no god and yet is an afterlife; and spiritualists and mediums offer us evidence of survival independent of the question whether there is a god. I have never attended a spiritualist performance, but I have read some of their reports. I think I can safely say that no afterlife of any difference in quality from this life has been reported, and no afterlife of any interest. The stuff they offer us is deadly dull. However, it might be true for all that. Homer believed that there is an afterlife and it is deadly dull.

I judge that it is false, and that all these reports of messages from the dead are false. (By which I do not mean that they are all frauds or lies. No doubt many of them are sincere. It is desirable to repeat from time to time that a falsehood is not the same as a lie. A falsehood can be sincerely uttered, and a lie can be true.) These reports have the pattern of inventions, the vagueness, the poverty, the similarity to each other, the comfortingness, and the insistence on circumstances that make criticism difficult, such as darkness and reverence.

My main reason for thinking there is no afterlife is that it seems immensely probable that everything we know as life depends on there being a living body. All that part of life which consists in the activity of a living body selfevidently depends on there being a living body, for example, eating, tasting, running, laughing, kissing. The life that does not selfevidently depend on there being a living body is the interior life of the mind, including reasoning, imagining, dreaming, and other activities and experiences. But it seems quite clear that we have overwhelming physiological evidence that this mental life, too, depends on the activity of a living body, and ceases when there is no longer a good brain with good blood flowing through it in the right quantity.

-Positive Atheism

I am not really trying to prove anything here, and I will have to consider his claims in another post about souls, but I found it interesting enough to pass on. It's also interesting that his argument against the afterlife only works on the assumption that there is no God, and that naturalism is true.

Ok, so you go on about souls,

Many people atheist and otherwise talk of the soul as an abstract aspect of the human psychology...

The same way they talk of unicorns not existing. There's been no credible evidence of a soul as thought of in religious terms existing so there's no reason to act as if one does. There is no burden of "dis-proof" science bares. You want them to believe in a supernatural soul, give them some proof

In response to the first comment, I say you're right. In fact, to be a naturalist, one has to account for qualia physio-neurologically, which is a very shaky ground to find yourself on. The arguments of David Chalmers are pretty persuasive that such accounts (such as epiphenomonalism, other less successful wannabe dualisms, and naturalism) ultimately fail to make sense of a lot of facts (cf. especially his work on zombies, and Searle's Chinese Room Argument is good too - even though Searle refuses the label "substance dualist", well... he is one). But aside from these most excellent philosophers, take a look at what the neurologists and agnostics themselves are coming up with these days.

Penfield began his scientific career with the belief that a complete explanation of the brain mechanisms underlying our various mental functions would amount to an understanding of the mind itself. In 1975, a year before his death, he published a book significantly titled The Mystery of the Mind. In that book, after reflecting on what he had lent about brain mechanisms after decades of research, he declared that 'it comes as a surprise now to discover, during this final examination of the evidence, that the dualist hypothesis seems the more reasonable' (p. 85)... Penfield was drawn to the 'dualist hypothesis' because not once in countless surgeries did artificial stimulation of brain tissue ever 'cause a patient to believe or to decide' (p. 77). Furthermore, he knew of no cases in which the initial brain activity associated with an epileptic seizure induced a belief or decision.

-[Cooney, Brian (2000). The Place of Mind. United States: Matrix Productions Inc.]


In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint is no longer intellectually credible, as a result of the scientific experiments of British neurologist, Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter. Eccles explained his methodology in The Self and Its Brain, co-authored with the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (see Popper and Eccles, 1977). In a discussion centering on Dr. Eccles’ work, Norman Geisler discussed the concept of an eternal, all-knowing Mind.

{That book reference is: [Popper, Karl R. and John C. Eccles (1977), The Self and Its Brain. New York: Springer International.]}

From evidence such as that presented here, Robert Jastrow (an agnostic, by his own admission) was forced to conclude: “That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proved fact” (1982, p. 18). The evidence speaks clearly regarding the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.

{That book reference is: [Jastrow, Robert (1982), “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths,” Interview with Bill Durbin, Christianity Today, August 6.]}

-The Case For the Existence of God

Chris, its not that there is no scientific or credible evidence of souls existing, and dualists, such as us Christians, bear the burden of proof. The simple fact is that I experience life as a soul, I feel, I think, I decide, etc. If you want to make the claim there is no soul, then you bear the responsibility of demonstrating such a claim. The default position seems to be dualist, as we all experience life from our own perspective, as if there was some sort of consciousness inside.

So the next thread is:

Though there are Christians who act with love and strive for excellence, I wouldn't say love and excellence are themselves typical Christian behavior, particularly when it comes to Christendom's lamentable influence on both non-believers and on scientific progress.

Although love and excellence have not always characterized the behaviors of Christians, they are Christ-like traits. Indeed, "Christian" insofar as it means "Christ-like" is a bit of a misnomer. Historically those claiming the name for themselves haven't always exhibited the corresponding traits. The behavior of Christians, along with what it means to be Christian, will have to be dealt with in a separate post someday.

But do you really lament Christianity's influence on scientific progress (also cf. "Men of Science/Men of Faith" HIS, May 1976, pp. 26-31)?

I will admit here that certain churches at certain times (like the Roman Catholic church in Galileo's time) have inhibited, rejected, refuted, or burned important scientific works. This is tragic and regrettable.

In Galileo's case, men who took both clear thinking and Biblical special revelation seriously were motivated to take a second look at what scripture actually teaches. The Bible itself in many places instructs us to observe the natural world in order to learn about God, and find illumination for scripture. We should be consistently going back to the Bible and rechecking our interpretation work according to sound hermeneutics so that we can be sure we are getting out of it what we are meant to. As to astronomy, once those Christians looked again at the meaning of the passages the Catholic church used to reject Galileo's findings, they found that, had they interpreted them correctly and according to solid interpretation principles, they would not have been led to reject Galileo's findings. Moreover, had the Catholic church listened to Jesus, they wouldn't have rejected Galileo merely on the bases of his scientific beliefs anyway - even if they disagreed. The problem was with Papal Authority being made equal to and/or greater than scripture, a problem scripture warns against, and one of the reasons for Great Schism and the Reformation.

Next comment:

The insular life many Christians lead (fundies especially), socializing primarily in church circles, home schooling and attending religious colleges, enjoying primarily religious entertainment media and such keeps them from being exposed in a meaningful way to differing ways of thinking and from hearing first hand about divergent opinion and worldview. When they learn about science and evolution it's with a "theized for your protection" Christian slant.

You are correct in your assessment and judgment about this, and it is unfortunate. Such Christians are not living Biblically, as the Bible teaches us to live in the world (while maintaining distinction from it in terms of moral living and correct beliefs about God). We are supposed to be dynamically engaged in pop culture, exposing ourselves to various viewpoints and making friends of all types. Pastors themselves should preach with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. Sectarianism is not the way to go. But anyone who holds firm convictions about anything (even atheists) should avoid syncretism as well, as it degrades the human will, by saying that all choices are ultimately the same.

As to my own life, I admit heavy exposure to scientists who are Christian, but this was not the case for me in high school, and it I have been making concerted efforts to read from a variety of philosophical, theological, and scientific sources over the last year.

As to whether my secular/sacred balance of informational sources and social relationships is healthy, I can't help but say that you probably have no idea, and are not positioned to make a judgment (not that you are, I hope).

I emotionally feel the need to defend a place like Biola University from your accusation that its classes on science and evolution are "theized for your protection", but with all due respect, your comment just reflects ignorance of the facts.

As to other colleges, such as Calvary Chapel Bible College, I can't make any judgments, as I don't know very much about them. I do know that they are not accredited, and make no claim to being liberal arts oriented. Hence "Bible college".

Christianity is incoherent with logic or science. (ex. water into wine, regaining life after dying and three days of decomposition)

Turning water into wine and bodily resurrection aren't scientifically impossible. Perhaps improbable, but that doesn't make Christianity irreconcilable with science and logic. Sometimes "miracle" is defined as a breech in physical law, in which case Christianity does not demand that one believes in them. It is an epistemic possibility that both events actually occurred, and, should we have had the appropriate knowledge and instruments, we could have examined the details to discover how it is that they came about. Other times "miracle" is defined as "something remarkable", something awe-inspiring. In this case, one best believe that certain things are worthy of awe. There are things that only occur rarely. Indeed, such things as random genetic mutations defy common experience at face-value. However, when we begin examining the microbiological issues surrounding mutations, we start to unravel their causes. Could it be that in similar cases, unexpected or rare occurrences such as the transformation of water into wine, and the bodily resurrection from the dead of a person, could maintain both their rarity and their scientific plausibility? In fact, many who deny the teleological argument admit that although it was unlikely, the universe was actually caused by unintelligent, random processes. To believe in such an improbable event and then turn around and deny miracles is problematic.

Or is it possible that "miracles", defined as breeches in physical laws, are possible too? If it were so that a nonphysical, self-existent being created everything, maybe even physical laws as well, then it might not be that difficult to imagine. Just as the programmer of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 can temporarily "break" the laws that he has set up to govern gameplay, in order to accomplish something he wants to. If we are operating under the definition of "science" that excludes exceptions to physical laws, then miracles in this sense are not classified therein, even if they are possible in a broadly logical sense. But we have to qualify that science in this sense isn't the only means to knowledge. If we are operating under the definition of "science" that includes all means to knowledge, then Divine Revelation and historical records would count, in which case miracles of this type may be categorized as within the realm of science (more on this a little further down this post).

When you define science in the way that excludes exceptions to physical laws, by the way, you will run into problems when trying to scientifically learn about our universe before the Planck Epoch.

To make the brute claim that the future will always and necessarily resemble the past in such a way that miracles (as breeches in physical laws) are impossible, then you will violate an important principle of the Skeptic's:

For all inferences from experience suppose as their foundation that the future will resemble the past and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar qualities. If there is any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless and can give rise to no inference of conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future, since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed up to now ever so regular, that alone, without some new argument of inference, does not prove that for the future it will continue so. In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. Their secret nature and, consequently, all their effects and influence may change without any change in their sensible qualities. This happens sometimes and with regard to some objects. Why may it not happen always and with regard to all objects? What logic, what process of argument secures you against this supposition? My practice, you say, refutes my doubts. But you mistake the purport of my question. As an agent, I am quite satisfied in the point, but as a philosopher who has some share of curiosity--I will not say skepticism--I want to learn the foundation of this inference. No reading, no inquiry has yet been able to remove my difficulty or give me satisfaction in a matter of such importance.

-David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Section IV, Part II).

The "scientific", "skeptical" materialistic atheists will claim that just because we haven't found physical causes for things like the existence of our universe, doesn't mean that they don't exist. Science is committed to finding them. This commitment is an argument from ignorance, and it is based on faith. There is no logical proof that could ever justify the claim "there are always and only physical causes according to physical laws". And because there is no justification for belief in such a proposition, it can only be accepted by faith. Science should be more open minded than this. I put quotes around "skeptical" as well, asserting that the discounting of nonphysical factors in the causation of things like the existence of our universe, turning water into wine, or bodily resurrection, is an unnecessary narrowing of the mind. Consider another quote from the same author, in Part I of Section V of the same work:

There is, however, one species of philosophy which seems little liable to this inconvenience, and that because it strikes in with no disorderly passion of the human mind, nor can mingle itself with any natural affection or propensity; and that is the Academic or skeptical philosophy. The academics always talk of doubt and suspense of judgment, of danger in hasty determinations, of confining to very narrow bounds the inquiries of the understanding, and of renouncing all speculations which do not lie within the limits of common life and practice.

The medievals thought that the heavenly bodies were incorruptible. To them, belief that the sun might not rise tomorrow would be silly. But now we know that stars are born, and stars explode. It is not so irrational to think that despite the experience of every human on record it just the sun just might not rise tomorrow. It just might explode instead. We know that this is scientifically possible, and even probable over the long term. Could it be that although we think we understand the human body and its death and the nature of liquids and their synthesis, but are not considering possible factors that have not yet been thoroughly understood? Is the miraculous any more impossible, or even different than, an apple's attraction to the earth, a baby being born, a star collapsing, or a lover's sacrifice?

When I ask skeptics about miracles, they usually say that they have never personally heard of any happening. But what about the case that Brianna cited? What about the case that I cited? I can collect more testimonies if you want. How many would you need to be convinced? How many doctors would need to be dumbfounded by the results of post-prayer tests for you to believe in miracles? How many historical records of miracles would you need to read about before you are convinced?

What's interesting is that the book of Isaiah records God Himself as actually using the reliability of physical laws as a basis for telling people to trust in Him.

Regarding the Catholic Church, could it be that because they defined miracles as breeches in physical laws, they ran into problems when science started showing that physical laws are reliable? Maybe they should have viewed miracles as merely awe-inspiring, rare occurrences. And shouldn't they be attributing everything to God in some sense, even the ordinary?

If you can show me specifically how it is that you can know that it is literally and terminally and by all reasonable accounts impossible for the dead to rise or for water to be turned into wine, then I will have to start taking objections to miracles more seriously.

I also highly recommend C. S. Lewis' and William Lane Craig's works on miracles, they explain a lot.

Next you say,

You keep trying to advance the idea that science is a religion. It isn't.

Ok, sorry. Let me elaborate. Science is not a religion, and I never meant to claim it as such. It is a method. In my opinion it is a good method for acquiring knowledge, but certainly not the only veridical one.

"Scientism", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is the

excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

The same also offers one definition of religion as

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

and faith as

complete trust or confidence in someone or something... a strongly held belief or theory

Under these definitions "scientism" falls into the category "religion", even though science is not a religion.

"Empiricism" (which often goes hand-in-hand with Scientism) is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as

the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience

This would discount logic as a means to acquire knowledge. This would constitute a religious belief under the above definitions. Moreover, this is what the scientific method post was in refutation of. To make the claim that sensory data is the only veridical type is in itself a philosophical claim, undermining Empiricism itself. What sensory data can one provide that justifies the claim that only sensory data is veridical? And the moment one gropes for philosophical data, he concedes the philosopher's point. I am not calling you an Empiricist or a "Scientismist", as you allow logic to be used in the quest for knowledge, but we seem to be missing each other here with these terms, so I am clarifying my use of them.

I would like to note that empirical evidence carries weight with me, but I reject Empiricism as defined here.

"Naturalism" is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as

a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted

Quite often modern scientists hold to such a philosophy, but they should not pretend that the philosophy itself is the only paradigm science can operate within. There are plenty of respectable scientists and philosophers who are not naturalists.

Some define "science" in a more philologically correct way. Scienta is Latin for "to know", in which case all means of acquiring knowledge fall into the category "science". The medieval philosophers, scientists, and theologians considered theology to be "the queen of the sciences", because it is a means to acquire knowledge of the most important Object in existence.

I have time for one more today:

To reiterate what I've probably said before; there's a difference between the meaning of the word 'theory' in common usage and in scientific usage.

I understand the scientific use of the term "theory", and was crediting Evolution as being one. It was a compliment. This is of course not to concede Darwinian Evolution as my viewpoint, but I was indeed trying to demonstrate my understanding of the term, and show some respect for Evolution as a theory.

Anyway, I know there is still more to your reply that I haven't addressed, but I'll get there. I am dying to hear from you, though. How are you? Where are you at with all of this? Are you in a place where you're saying "these kids are so stupid, they misinterpret me, they don't know what they're talking about, and there is no use trying to argue with them." Or are you reconsidering certain details of your world view, or are you just taking a little hiatus?

All the best to everyone.