Help required on the Lebniz Cosmological arguement.

[Silvertusk]

Hi Guys.

Need a bit of help here. I am running a apologetics home group for my church and I use a lot of WLC's material. One of his arguements is the Lebniz Cosmological Arguement - or the argument from contingency.

The Argument goes like this:

1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR].
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).

Now I would have been happy if the argument was just:

1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR].
2) The universe exists.
3) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 2)

Which seems to be intuitive and then you can start talking about what that explanation may be. But unfortunately WLC throws this in:

2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Which to me seems a huge leap and question begging in favour of thiesm. WLC states that the reason this premise might be true is because the logical equivalent of this statement is that atheists state that if Athiesm is true then the Universe has no explanation. So therefore if the universe does have an explanation, then Athiesm is false - therefore it must be God. That statement seems to be logically sound with just one problem - I do not know of any athiests that state that the universe does not have an explanation - just that they do not believe that explanation is God.

So the question really is - is the argument in its entirety a bad argument?

Any help or comments given would be much appreciated.

God Bless

Silvertusk,

[neo-x]

In simple watered down words...its a God of the gaps. Perhaps not a seemingly unjustified one at first look but still a GOG.

Allow me to explain why its a GOG. (for general readers it might be a bit confusing , please carefully read this, re read if possible)

You see the problem is assuming that time must be linear, like a straight line starting from 0 to uptill now. And thats the problem with cosmological arguments. What if time is not straight like a line?

Consider a circle, if you look at a formed circle, can you say that it has a starting point? No, you can suppose it must have had one but you don't know which one is it out of the 360 points. The circle exists in time, it must have formed sometime. But the circle itself has no start or end as the formation does not allow a start and end. It moves back on itself. You with me?

Words like start or end work when linearity is being supposed in some fashion. So in this way you can say that the circle was once drawn, but the circle itself has no start or end points. Therefore start and end is relative. When the cosmological argument uses these words, it used them in linear time line way. However when an atheist sees it, he sees it as not as linear but as formative sense. The circle may have formed but the circle itself has no start or end. Everything that exists exists in the universe, the circle including time. Now The killer question then becomes and might make anyone's scratch their head:

If the universe came into being along a linear timeline, then time existed outside of existence of the universe? (since everything that we can veritably say exits, exist in the universe or the circle, INCLUDING TIME)

But we do not know that, we say that time started at the big bang and that what is the cosmological argument banking upon.

Is time the same as existence? literally? if not then what is existence?

because then I would ask "if time existed outside of existence so that the universe had a start, then when did existence gave birth to existence? The circle has no start and no end, yet it must be formed in time. The cosmological argument fails to address this by making a huge leap as you so noted.

Science says that time is existence, therefore existence and matter, universe came about the same time. But the cosmological argument says that the cause must exist out side of the universe and the problem is, if the cause exists outside of existence then existence exists outside of existence(universe).

Here the cosmological argument fails because by saying that everything that begins in time, must have a cause; they have shown that their cause has no beginning in time. it is self refuting by the very principle it states to prove its point. Unless it makes a concession for God.

Its the same as theists often joke to atheists "you can not say objectively that subjectivity is objective." Because if subjectivity is objective truth then it self destructs as it no longer remains subjective.

And the atheist rightly points that out to the cosmological argument. Asking who made God, in other words he is asking whats the cause of your cause. Because by definition if your cause exists outside of what exists(the universe), then your cause must have a starting point too in time (since existence and time must form at the same moment, big bang)for it to exist in first place.

Namely the problem is "linear timeline". If you use linear time line, then the atheist will use it too. In other words if you are making a concession for a single cause to be outside of your existence then why is it not possible that your cause (God) may have had a cause too which existed outside of his existence. You see by allowing yourself a concession you open up to be attacked since the atheist will use it to, and not unfairly since you demonstrated yourself.

So in this way God and time, on a linear scale become bonded. If God is eternal then he is existence and if he is existence then there is time too, since existence must be traced back in time by the very logic and purpose of the cosmo argument. But then if God is existence and God is eternal and time is existence therefore time is eternal too. If time is eternal then time has no cause, that right there defeats the cosmological argument. But go further, if time has no cause then time by our definition is God. If we say that time is not eternal but was formed then that means that God is not eternal but was formed. You see the problem? Existence and time must go together or else everything falls apart. If God exists then either he is in time or outside of it. If he is in time, then time is eternal and the cosmological argument fails, since eternal has no cause.

If God exists outside of time, then by definition time was born and that means existence was born, meaning God was/could have been born at some point too since he too is existence. Since existence and time must go hand in hand. God is existence, existence must occur in time.

And that is the problem here. Either we say that existence and time are the same thing and always existed (God and time), but that has problems.
or we say that God is outside of linear time, and if that is so then we can not trace him back in time in a linear way, remember, we just said God is outside of time. How can we measure something along a fixed line when the object we want to trace it back to does not exist on the line?

You see we are making an argument (cosmo argument) on the assumption that the line goes back-towards the cause and hence connect, but we just said that our cause object is not on the line, therefore it can not connect without having absurd conclusions (time is God as time is eternal too) or GOG, that the line does not go back towards God but we think its God, thus filling in the gap. And we have no way to prove that the connection is valid, its apparently but only to the one who is looking to forgive the gap or the self refuting argument.

That is the point where the GOG comes in and the cosmo argument uses it to fill in that gap because the other option, time being eternal defeats the argument since there can only be one cause not two.

You can always consider the Thomistic prime mover argument, which I think avoids this difficulty, I'm not sure but Jac may help you with that.

[Silvertusk]

Thanks for your answer Neo.

Look again at the first premise and that covers the "cause" of God. He is a necessary being. As WLC would say - outside of creation God is timeless, with creation he is temporal - so I do not see a problem with God being outside of creation in a timeless state. Time was created with the universe. Everything that exists therefore has an explanation - Time, the universe and also God.

So I think the argument is perfectly valid and do not agree with what you just wrote. My issue is with premise 2.

[neo-x]

Thanks for your answer Neo.

Look again at the first premise and that covers the "cause" of God. He is a necessary being. As WLC would say - outside of creation God is timeless, with creation he is temporal - so I do not see a problem with God being outside of creation in a timeless state. Time was created with the universe. Everything that exists therefore has an explanation - Time, the universe and also God.

So I think the argument is perfectly valid and do not agree with what you just wrote. My issue is with premise 2.

Then by the very same standard time exists too with God or God is not existence? It would be very easy if you could define existence.

You see without time, you are just defining God as a abstract entity, you can not define existence without time but on the other hand you also say God is existence thus saying time is there too? there is a problem indeed here.

EDIT.

ST, if you are not interested in what I have wrote then feel free to ignore, it. This is your thread and obviously you would want to discuss what you want to discuss. I respect that. I do however think that the problem I posted exists, if you so choose to discuss this at a later time, I'd be glad to.

[Silvertusk]

Thanks for your answer Neo.

Look again at the first premise and that covers the "cause" of God. He is a necessary being. As WLC would say - outside of creation God is timeless, with creation he is temporal - so I do not see a problem with God being outside of creation in a timeless state. Time was created with the universe. Everything that exists therefore has an explanation - Time, the universe and also God.

So I think the argument is perfectly valid and do not agree with what you just wrote. My issue is with premise 2.

Then by the very same standard time exists too with God or God is not existence? It would be very easy if you could define existence.

You see without time, you are just defining God as a abstract entity, you can not define existence without time but on the other hand you also say God is existence thus saying time is there too? there is a problem indeed here.

EDIT.

ST, if you are not interested in what I have wrote then feel free to ignore, it. This is your thread and obviously you would want to discuss what you want to discuss. I respect that. I do however think that the problem I posted exists, if you so choose to discuss this at a later time, I'd be glad to.

Thanks Neo.

Just in case you got the wrong impression I have read your post and am very grateful for your input, I am just typing quick short posts inbetween working..(lots to do )

Whos to say that for something to exist you need time?

I have never heard of such a concept and I do not agree with that statement or see the logical need for time to be associated with existance. Something can exist in a timeless state as WLC would argue.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

[neo-x]

Thanks for your answer Neo.

Look again at the first premise and that covers the "cause" of God. He is a necessary being. As WLC would say - outside of creation God is timeless, with creation he is temporal - so I do not see a problem with God being outside of creation in a timeless state. Time was created with the universe. Everything that exists therefore has an explanation - Time, the universe and also God.

So I think the argument is perfectly valid and do not agree with what you just wrote. My issue is with premise 2.

Then by the very same standard time exists too with God or God is not existence? It would be very easy if you could define existence.

You see without time, you are just defining God as a abstract entity, you can not define existence without time but on the other hand you also say God is existence thus saying time is there too? there is a problem indeed here.

EDIT.

ST, if you are not interested in what I have wrote then feel free to ignore, it. This is your thread and obviously you would want to discuss what you want to discuss. I respect that. I do however think that the problem I posted exists, if you so choose to discuss this at a later time, I'd be glad to.

Thanks Neo.

Just in case you got the wrong impression I have read your post and am very grateful for your input, I am just typing quick short posts inbetween working..(lots to do )

Whos to say that for something to exist you need time?

I have never heard of such a concept and I do not agree with that statement or see the logical need for time to be associated with existance. Something can exist in a timeless state as WLC would argue.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

Thats alright ST. I took everything in the best of spirit. I do would like to know how WLC defines existence? Do you have his definition of it?

I think a definition without time is quiet problematic and impossible, hence leading to the GOG which becomes so obvious. If you entertain that question, I'd be happy to know your thoughts.

[neo-x]

Thanks Neo.

Just in case you got the wrong impression I have read your post and am very grateful for your input, I am just typing quick short posts inbetween working..(lots to do )

Whos to say that for something to exist you need time?

I have never heard of such a concept and I do not agree with that statement or see the logical need for time to be associated with existance. Something can exist in a timeless state as WLC would argue.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

Also one more thing ST, does timeless means eternal? you see even eternal does not mean there is no time, it means time has no end. How is WLC using the word timeless, is it without time or infinite time? There is a difference.

[Silvertusk]

Thanks for your answer Neo.

Look again at the first premise and that covers the "cause" of God. He is a necessary being. As WLC would say - outside of creation God is timeless, with creation he is temporal - so I do not see a problem with God being outside of creation in a timeless state. Time was created with the universe. Everything that exists therefore has an explanation - Time, the universe and also God.

So I think the argument is perfectly valid and do not agree with what you just wrote. My issue is with premise 2.

Then by the very same standard time exists too with God or God is not existence? It would be very easy if you could define existence.

You see without time, you are just defining God as a abstract entity, you can not define existence without time but on the other hand you also say God is existence thus saying time is there too? there is a problem indeed here.

EDIT.

ST, if you are not interested in what I have wrote then feel free to ignore, it. This is your thread and obviously you would want to discuss what you want to discuss. I respect that. I do however think that the problem I posted exists, if you so choose to discuss this at a later time, I'd be glad to.

Thanks Neo.

Just in case you got the wrong impression I have read your post and am very grateful for your input, I am just typing quick short posts inbetween working..(lots to do )

Whos to say that for something to exist you need time?

I have never heard of such a concept and I do not agree with that statement or see the logical need for time to be associated with existance. Something can exist in a timeless state as WLC would argue.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

Thats alright ST. I took everything in the best of spirit. I do would like to know how WLC defines existence? Do you have his definition of it?

I think a definition without time is quiet problematic and impossible, hence leading to the GOG which becomes so obvious. If you entertain that question, I'd be happy to know your thoughts.

Here is an article by WLC on God and Time - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-eternity I think it covers the aspect of God's Timelessness before creation.

I am still am not clear why you think existence requires time? Could you explain that one for me I don't see how it is problematic or impossible. And where does God of the Gaps come into it.

Modern science states that time began with the big bang. So if the universe has a cause that casue needs to be outside of time - hence timeless.
All matter was created in the big bang so the cause needs to be immaterial.
To create a universe out of nothing implies incredible power so the cause needs to be immensley powerful.
The cause must be necessary and non-caused itself otherwise you have an infinite regress so it must be eternal in a qualitative way.
To purposely move from a timeless state to a temporal state requires a will - hence the cause is personal.

Timeless, immaterial, all powerful, eternal and personal cause = God. This is a summary of the argument.

WLC addresses many objections to it in this question:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-c ... e-universe

[Silvertusk]

Thanks Neo.

Just in case you got the wrong impression I have read your post and am very grateful for your input, I am just typing quick short posts inbetween working..(lots to do )

Whos to say that for something to exist you need time?

I have never heard of such a concept and I do not agree with that statement or see the logical need for time to be associated with existance. Something can exist in a timeless state as WLC would argue.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

Also one more thing ST, does timeless means eternal? you see even eternal does not mean there is no time, it means time has no end. How is WLC using the word timeless, is it without time or infinite time? There is a difference.

Without time.

[Jac3510]

I agree with you that (2) is deeply problematic. That premise assumes that the universe cannot be necessary of its own nature (one of the options he allows in (1)). But why make that assumption? Granted, Craig calls God a necessary being, but what makes God necessary and the universe not? Hume recognized just this issue. On this point, I would highly recommend you read Erik Wielenberg's “Dawkins’s Gabmit, Hume’s Aroma, and God’s Simplicity,” Philosophia Christi 11 (2009): 113-27.

There are also problems with the whole use of the PSR, but I think those can be broadly defended against. All you have to do is not be a Kantian, which should be relatively easy.

But (2) . . . yes, that's very problematic. All Craig is shown is that the universe requires an explanation. He hasn't shown that its explanation cannot be in itself, that it must be God, and why if it is God, why God is necessary but the universe is not. He still has a lot of work to do here, IMO.

[SonofAletheia]

Craig addresses many of the questions posed here in this response http://www.reasonablefaith.org/argument ... ontingency

Besides that, premise 2 is very plausible in its own right. For think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of thing that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 7, for example, can’t cause any effects. So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.
The argument thus proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe. This is truly mind-blowing!

[SonofAletheia]

Is time the same as existence? literally? if not then what is existence?

I don't think so. Many philosophers believe in abstract objects (numbers, propositions etc) and if they exist, they are not in time. The same could be said for God existing timelessly.
So I don't think the words are synonymous.

because then I would ask "if time existed outside of existence so that the universe had a start, then when did existence gave birth to existence? The circle has no start and no end, yet it must be formed in time. The cosmological argument fails to address this by making a huge leap as you so noted.

WLC and defenders of the KCA say that space/time began at the Big Bang(Creation) and that God was the timeless/spaceless/immaterial Cause. So it's not quite "existence from existence" It would be a timeless Cause creating space/time

Science says that time is existence, therefore existence and matter, universe came about the same time. But the cosmological argument says that the cause must exist out side of the universe and the problem is, if the cause exists outside of existence then existence exists outside of existence(universe).

I'm not sure if the statement "Science says that time is existence" is true. Time (albeit a very tough term to define) is usually defined as the progress of events. So in layman's terms, time would be the progress of existence.

Here the cosmological argument fails because by saying that everything that begins in time, must have a cause; they have shown that their cause has no beginning in time. it is self refuting by the very principle it states to prove its point. Unless it makes a concession for God.

I've heard this response before and am a little confused by it. Why would we have to show that our cause has no beginning in time for the argument to go through? Think about it for a second. I'm willing to admit, for the sake of the discussion, that my Cause could have a beginning. That would do nothing to show the KCA fails.
Btw, I think there are good arguments for showing the Cause does not have a beginning in time but my previous point needed to be said.

[Silvertusk]

Found a good link that helps out a bit with this.

http://jwwartick.com/2010/10/06/l-c-a/

[domokunrox]

To answer your question Silvertusk from my perspective,

No, the argument isn't a bad one.
I don't find premise 2 to be problematic at all.


Sorry that I'm picking on Jac, again

what makes God necessary and the universe not?

Begging the question. It assumes that God is not a necessary being for the existence of the universe, and there are NO GOOD REASONS AT ALL to deny God as an explanation. In fact, God as an explanation makes too much sense.

He hasn't shown that its explanation cannot be in itself

The reason why Craig doesn't show that explanation for the existence of the universe cannot be itself is because, 1) He argument doesn't need to and 2) it is intuitively obvious that it is not. Such a positional is UNDERSTOOD to be INCONSISTENT where everything else we understand about the universe is CONSISTENT.

[Jac3510]

And as usual, dom continues to show that he doesn't understand what he's talking about and is unfamiliar with current literature and state of the debate. I don't debate him anymore for that very reason. If anyone wishes to read the paper I linked to, which is a professional philosophical analysis, and they are free to do so. And if they wish to take dom's word for it then that's fine too. I have made my case and I'm fine with it.