Cosmological Argument Flashcards
The difficulty of maintaining the universal negative
God does not exist
The argument is hard to maintain
What would you have to know to know that God does not exist?
Gold in Alaska analogy:
- To claim that there is no Gold in Alaska, you would have to dig up every square inch in Alaska to know for sure, if there is even one inch that hasn’t been dug up, you can’t be sure of the claim
- In contrast, to prove the opposite you would only have to find one piece of Gold.
In the same way, to prove that God does not exist, you would have to know everything there is to know about the universe.
Pushing the argument to its logical conclusion
As a way to get people to think about the implications of the views that they hold.
the logical conclusion for an atheistic universe is one of hopelessness, our lives are based on unyielding despair
What does the question “who made God, or where does God come from?” assume.
A limited God that is subject to and limited by time, space, and matter
The basic format of the cosmological argument
If something exists now, then something has always existed, unless something comes from nothing.
That something, that has always existed is either the universe or one that has created the universe
if you can eliminate the universe as being that which has always existed, you’re left with the One who’s created the universe
- Something exists now
Something exists now (why does something exist rather than nothing)
even if the world is only an illusion (Maya), then there still needs to exist a person to be deceived. The fact that you can think about or doubt reality, presupposes a thinking person, so at the very least someone or something that can think exists
I think therefore I am -decart
- Then something has always existed unless something comes from nothing.
ex nihil nihilo fit: Out of nothing, nothing comes
When we are at an intersection and the road is clear we can cross it confidently, because we don’t expect that a truck is going to appear suddenly out of thin air
We can’t even talk about nothing, because when we talk about it we have to talk about it as if it is something
Nothing comes into existence out of nothing.
Saying the universe came into existence out of nothing is not plausible, because nothing comes into existence out of nothing.
So either something has always existed (the universe) or it was created by Something
Three options for the universe
- Nothing
- Impersonal
- Personal
arguments for proving that it is impossible for something like the universe to have always existed, that the universe had a beginning
- The impossibility of an actual infinite number of finite things.
- impossible for infinity to exist with respect to time in the past
- Big Bang
- Second law of thermodynamics
The universe had a beginning: The impossibility of an actual infinite number of finite things
Kalam cosmological argument
- The concept of infinity:
exists in potential, but the idea of actual infinity is inconceivable and inexpressible, and therefore not easy to talk about
a.) Zeno’s paradox: It is still possible to add up an infinite number of finite numbers and still get a finite answer (eg. distance or a the area of a square)
for a square, the total area will still be the area of the square regardless of how many times we divide the pieces
b). Sun and Moon example:
if we imagine that the Sun and the moon were infinite, and for every revolution of the sun, there are 12 revolutions of the moon. If the revolutions of the sun were infinite, then the revolutions of the moon would equal that of the sun, even though it is 12th times greater
c.) Time example
It is impossible to have infinity pass in time If you count back from the present moment to infinity, and then come back from infinity to the present point, would you ever arrive at the present? The present point would never arrive, but the present has arrived, therefore the time is not infinite
The universe had a beginning: Big Bang
an infinitely dense piece of matter, exploded into the universe we know today.
But this does not answer the question of what caused the universe, as matter is subject to space and time, which would mean that the infinitely dense piece of matter would need a cause.
it takes the argument back to the beginning, a singularity, and why is there something instead of nothing.
The universe had a beginning: Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The total entropy in the universe is increasing
Heat dissipates and is becoming equally distributed within the universe, the starts and the sun are running down, batteries run down
if the second law of thermodynamics is true, and the universe is infinite then the universe would have been run down and heat equally distributed an infinite time ago and therefore should have ceased to exist by now
The universe had a beginning: Second law of thermodynamic in reverse
Like with anti-matter
this would mean that energy is created, in which we have a being unto itself, a source for the creation of the universe, a self existent necessary first cause, God by a different name
Einstein tried to disprove the expanding universe theory, and os invented the terms anti-gravity and the cosmological constant to do so, but later proved himself wrong
Edward hubble discovered through a redshift that galaxies are moving rapidly away from each other.
What about the idea that if the universe is constantly expanding, that at some point it will begin to retract and move inwards
Hubble discovered that the universe is constantly expanding and galaxies are moving away from each other with increasing speed
Hubble’s law states that the further away the galaxy, the faster it moves, in other words, it is not slowing down, it is moving at escape velocity which makes it unlikely that the universe will retract
Robert boyle’s steady state theory
States that as the universe burns up a new universe is created
this was disproved by the discovery of primordial background radiation in space and the amount of helium that is consistent with calculations of the expected amount that should exist given our current universe
The universe has a biginning: The anthropic priniciple
The possibility of life requires finetuning or a fine-tuned universe
if the strong and weak forces that bind protons and neutrons together, was 5% weaker or stronger, life would have been impossible
if gravity was stronger by 1 to the 10 parts then stars would not exist
if the neutron was not 1.001 the size of a proton, then all protons would have decayed into neutrons and life would not have been possible
if the electromagnetic force was slightly weaker or stronger then life would not be able to exist
Fine-tuning suggests that someone tuned it.