Friday, May 29, 2009

Sorry no good acronym, here I refute the Cosmological argument.

I have already written about the Ontological and Transcendental arguments for God. The last of the three arguments for Christianity which I want to address is the Cosmological argument. It is the supposition that the universe itself is proof of the existence of God. It hinges on two precepts. The first is infinite regress. This is the belief that the universe can not have existed eternally because if it had an infinite number of things would have had to happen before now therefore now would never arrive. Christians tend to ignore the fact that infinite regress would apply also to a God or any other "first cause" they in fact say that because their God is "outside of time and space" that he is the only possible first cause. They conspicuously neglect to explain how something can be outside time and space. I will demonstrate how infinite egress is meaningless and the universe can be eternal without suffering infinite regress or being "outside time and space"

The second premise is that if there were ever a state of nothingness then there would still be nothing because nothing can not cause something. I will demonstrate the irrelevance of this by demonstrating that there was always something. I also postulate a reasonable possibility of how that something caused everything else. This last is speculation I am not a quantum physicist, I can follow along with basic quantum mechanics but can not describe original complex functions. However my speculation is within the realm of what quantum mechanics indicates is possible. Although it is beyond any hypothesis that I know of, so please don't read more into it than it being a reasonable speculation. It is at any rate incidental to my main argument and serves only to demonstrate that a non sentient first cause is possible.

Neither infinite regress or the origin of energy are valid dilemma. The first is refuted in trivial fashion by the nature of causality. The latter is potentially explained through principals of quantum physics.

As to infinite regress. Causality requires multiple identities, if there is only one identity then no causation is possible. This is a principal of logic. A thing may only be itself therefore multiple things are required for causality to occur.

In the existence of space, which has been determined as an identity. It has structure and obeys rules, therefore it is something. It is eternal and immaterial, but it is something. Space alone would not allow causality as it is a single identity. Space alone would allow for nothing to happen yet space would exist. Non contradiction confirms that "no things" can not be "an infinite number of things" therefore in the absence of causality infinite regress can not apply.

The second problem, where did energy originate is also do to the nature of space as something. The principal of quantum vacuum friction, shows that particles can come in to existence uncaused. This is evident even in the limited "nothingness" possible under current conditions. Theoretically a similar phenomena could have created that which is commonly referred to as the singularity.

This is not a problem of something coming from nothing. Space is determined to be something. It is no a matter of a material something being brought into existence by an eternal immaterial something.

The cosmological argument claims that only an eternal immaterial entity could cause the universe. I agree. The cosmological argument claims that the eternal immaterial something is a god. However that has not been demonstrated. The "cosmological argument in no way substantiates such a premise. Space is also shown to be an eternal, immaterial entity. It is also a candidate for first cause, it unlike a god does not have to be "transcendent" because unlike a god it is not subject to infinite regress. One possible counter to this would be to claim that a god is a singular identity as well. This is unlikely because a god is a complex and powerful entity and lacks the simplicity to not allow causality. However since theists tend to define their gods however they wish I will concede the point.

However this still removes the god concept as the only possible first cause. It refutes the claim that the existence of the universe proves god, and reduces God to simply one possible hypothesis, which is where it belongs. Then we can weigh the evidence, on one hand space which we know exists, we can witness its behavior, science can measure and evaluate it. On the other hand we have God which can not be seen tested or evaluated and must be believed on faith alone. It also is derived from old legends who's claims conflict with all known science.

There are some who will still say "God did it" but they can not use the cosmological argument to back it up.

1 comment:

Kerri Love said...

I have to agree.. God can only be one hypothesis and the nature of that God could be any number of things but I see no evidence of any God like influence.

I prefer to think of an observant scientist God, one that simply watches and does not interfere with what ever form of creation he might have started.

I am more then willing to accept that there was no God that started it but I can not accept that any God started it and continues to influence it in some magical way such as answering the prayers of we little human creatures.

There is no observable evidence of any God like influence at work in the universe at this time, so only a non influential form of God could possibly exist.

If there is an influence, it works within the laws that the universe seems to follow and is not arecognizable influence by us at this time.