Evidence for God from Science

Hmm, it seems the argument can be read two ways.
Actually, it seems I misunderstood Craig's argument myself.

To pin down my own confusion, which I think also highlights an issue with the argument, the issue surrounds "explanation".

Something that exists of its own accord doesn't actually require any explanation. Right?
But, in premise (1), it is considered an explanation that something exists "in the necessity of its own nature".

So then we hit premise (2): If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is God.
BUT, hang on. It was here that I injected the theological idea that something always existing in and of themselves requires no explanation.
Which for me actually turned this premise into:

• (2') If the universe has an explanation of its existence not found in the necessity of its own nature, then that explanation is God.

Stated this way, it become evident that it still needs to be proven that the explanation of the Universe cannot be found in its own nature.

I believe the argument appears to follow because in our heads (at least mine), we are equivocating on what is an "explanation" in premise (1) and what isn't in premise (2). If we switch the role of "universe" and God" around, the argument still appears to work. Which shows it is highly suspect.

• 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  2. If God has an explanation of his existence, that explanation is the Universe.
  3. God exists.
  4. Therefore, God has an explanation of his existence (from 1, 3).
  5. Therefore, the explanation of God's existence is the universe (from 2, 4).

See how this seems to work too. Atheists have just proven God is man made.
Evidently, the missing premises are justification for why the Universe can't just necessarily exist of its own nature.
Otherwise the argument becomes a bit circular in assuming what it is setting out to prove.

Sure, K. I, for one, think it goes without saying that the universe is not its own explanation for its existence. That seems evident from the title of the argument, doesn't it? That which is contingent cannot, by definition, be its own explanation. But the universe is contingent. Therefore, the universe has an explanation outside of its nature. That's why the atheist's version of this wouldn't work, because it would be presuming that God is a contingent thing, which at best begs the question and at worst is a four-term fallacy (insofar as no theist thinks of God as a contingent being).

Allow me to offer a different argument on a different subject that I think illustrates this.

• (1) Any property of a thing not identical with the essence of that thing is either caused by the essence or comes from outside.
  (2) Essence cannot produce its own existence or it would be prior to itself.
  Therefore,
  (3) if existence is not identical with essence, it must come from outside.
  (4) God’s existence does not come from outside.
  Therefore,
  (5) God’s existence is identical with His essence.

If 1-3 are valid (and I think they are), we can apply it to the universe to show that it cannot have its existence necessarily. Therefore, its cause must be external to it. But if that is true, then we come to something that is external to the universe that, in turn, has its existence necessarily and of itself. But per this argument (which I see is implicit in the way Craig has phrased it, even if he doesn't appreciate that!), then we see that this cause must be identical with its own essence. Such a thing ,though, would obviously be God (which, if it isn't obvious, we can see by hashing out the implications without too much trouble).

For what it is worth, I don't know that you misunderstood Craig's argument. Maybe you did. I don't know. I obviously look at these premises a little different than he does, so maybe I'm looking at them differently than he does. He probably sees this argument more in terms of the KCA, which you know I'm no fan of. So take that for whatever it is worth.

Jac3510 wrote:I think the missing premise, K, is covered in the qualifier for (1). EVERYTHING that exists (and that would include God), has an explanation for its existence. Qualifier: that explanation is either internal to it or external to it. I don't know that you would need to explicitly state that the explanation of the universe would be external to it. That's so obvious it can be assumed. All the multiverse theories are built on recognition of that fact.

So what would you call an explanation of the universe that is external to it? That is what we all call God. Let the atheist argue that the cause is not God. They're challenging premise 2, fine. But that doesn't mean it's missing a premise any more than the KCA is missing a premise when it says, "The universe came into existence." Sure, that needs to be defended. You can do it on scientific grounds. You can (try) to do it on philosophical grounds. But the premise itself is fine as stated. There's no leap. And just so here. That's why I suggested the rephrasing I did, but it's not necessary.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable writing out a formal defense of 2, including 2a, 2b, 2c, and so on. Again, that's fine. But it also doesn't strike me as THAT necessary. Once you understand what the terms mean ("God," "its own nature," "external cause,": etc.) it becomes rather self-evident.

I do agree with you, but I would feel more comfortable with a formal argument for showing the contingency of the universe (that it cannot exist in and of itself).
It is obvious to us, but not Atheists. To be air-tight, they shouldn't have any squirm room.

And yet, a common route many Atheists take in exchanges is why can't the universe be all there is.
They plead ignorance, or concede science may point to a cause of our universe, but we really don't know.
There could be others before ours. Science hasn't and even cannot rule out an ongoing concatenation of universes
(although I think there are good arguments involving science to suggest otherwise, such as heat transfer from one universe to the next eventually burning out).

And then we have supporting formal arguments (to the Kalam) such as the absurdity of an actual infinite existing (Hilbert's hotel), or the impossibility of an infinite regress. It seems people either understand and accept these, or such arguments go straight over their heads.

I know we can lead a horse to water, but can't make them drink.
These are all good and valid arguments that I believe to show that the universe is contingent.

But, it would be nice to have simpler justification, and I think the corner of contingency can offer such.
Formal arguments that show the dynamic nature of universe reveals itself as contingent, and therefore cannot exist in and of itself.
Arguments that aren't dependent upon science, or complex formal arguments that support the Kalam that are often waved away.

Kurieuo wrote:Hmm, it seems the argument can be read two ways.
Actually, it seems I misunderstood Craig's argument myself.

To pin down my own confusion, which I think also highlights an issue with the argument, the issue surrounds "explanation".

Something that exists of its own accord doesn't actually require any explanation. Right?
But, in premise (1), it is considered an explanation that something exists "in the necessity of its own nature".

So then we hit premise (2): If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is God.
BUT, hang on. It was here that I injected the theological idea that something always existing in and of themselves requires no explanation.
Which for me actually turned this premise into:

• (2') If the universe has an explanation of its existence not found in the necessity of its own nature, then that explanation is God.

Stated this way, it become evident that it still needs to be proven that the explanation of the Universe cannot be found in its own nature.

I believe the argument appears to follow because in our heads (at least mine), we are equivocating on what is an "explanation" in premise (1) and what isn't in premise (2). If we switch the role of "universe" and God" around, the argument still appears to work. Which shows it is highly suspect.

• 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  2. If God has an explanation of his existence, that explanation is the Universe.
  3. God exists.
  4. Therefore, God has an explanation of his existence (from 1, 3).
  5. Therefore, the explanation of God's existence is the universe (from 2, 4).

See how this seems to work too. Atheists have just proven God is man made.
Evidently, the missing premises are justification for why the Universe can't just necessarily exist of its own nature.
Otherwise the argument becomes a bit circular in assuming what it is setting out to prove.

I don't see it like this.All atheists are doing is basically saying the laws and time that came into existence at the big bang effect God too,which they cannot say because time did not come into being until the big bang happened,they ignore this and make time and laws apply to God somehow with woo woo science.

Jac3510 wrote:For what it is worth, I don't know that you misunderstood Craig's argument. Maybe you did. I don't know. I obviously look at these premises a little different than he does, so maybe I'm looking at them differently than he does. He probably sees this argument more in terms of the KCA, which you know I'm no fan of. So take that for whatever it is worth.

I did mistake his argument, as previously detailed, but it's still ultimately the same end.
That is, I see it needs to have an explicit premise added in, "The universe is not the cause for it's own existence" in between 3 and 4.
Then it becomes air tight, and obviously each premise can have supporting formal arguments if they're not accepted.

Here is the article that I extracted the argument from:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new- ... ts-for-god
I'm sure Craig has in mind your understanding and not just Kalam-like understanding (which he states as a separate argument there).

In that article, he comments on each premise further.
He believes Atheists beg the question when they say the Universe needs no explanation because it has always existed:

WLC wrote:One might try to justify making the universe an exception to premise 1. Some philosophers have claimed that it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence. For the explanation of the universe would have to be some prior state of affairs in which the universe did not yet exist. But that would be nothingness, and nothingness can’t be the explanation of anything. So the universe must just exist inexplicably.

This line of reasoning is, however, obviously fallacious because it assumes that the universe is all there is, that if there were no universe there would be nothing. In other words, the objection assumes that atheism is true. The objector is thus begging the question in favor of atheism, arguing in a circle. The theist will agree that the explanation of the universe must be some (explanatorily) prior state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. But that state of affairs is God and his will, not nothingness.

However, without additional arguments to challenge why the universe cannot exist in and of itself, I believe we just have an impasse.

BUT, there are additional arguments (some mentioned in my previous post, some you just mentioned) which reveal the universe to be contingent.
These arguments lean us logically more towards God possessing existence in and of his own nature rather than the universe.
Sadly, they are either purposefully ignored or go over the heads of Atheists I've discussed such matters with to date.

I think I see my confusion on your confusion. Craig does a good job, I think, of showing why the universe can't be an exception to (1). Although, for what it's worth, it seems to me that you can give a much easier reason than he did . . . such a retort from them would just be special pleading.

Anyway, you aren't asking why the universe can't be subject to (1). You are asking how we know that the universe can't be its own explanation. That wouldn't make it exempt from (1). But, then, it seems to me that if the atheist were to so retort, that the objection wouldn't be to (1) after all, but to (2). They could agree with (2) in principle but deny that the universe has an external cause, claiming that its explanation is necessarily of its own nature. You do seem to need a premise claiming that the universe needs an external cause. So I would suggest something like this:

• 1. Any property of a thing not identical with the essence of that thing is either caused by the essence or comes from outside.
  2. Essence cannot produce its own existence or it would be prior to itself.
  Therefore,
  3. if existence is not identical with essence, it must come from outside.
  4. The universe's existence is not identical with its essence
  Therefore,
  5. The universe's existence must come from outside.

And (5) here would be your missing premise, with 1-4 constituting sub-arguments. Yes, no?

I'm not sure I follow,here is why. Those of us who believe in a creator actually have science on our side to make our case for God.It is atheists that don't,they deny a creator but really have no explanation as to how it could happen without a creator.

Even if they bring up multi-verses as an explanation? It is not established science right now anyway,it is theoretical science without real substance behind it yet,so they kick the can down the road,meanwhile a creator lines up with actual established science and it lines up with what the bible says too and not the other bibles of other religions,but atheists ignore this and still choose to wait it out for an explanation of how you get a universe without a creator while nit-picking the bible,bashing God and giving 100' s of reasons why they don't believe in God and the God of the bible too.

Meanwhile the scientific evidence we have now points to God and judgment day is coming.

Jac3510 wrote:I think I see my confusion on your confusion. Craig does a good job, I think, of showing why the universe can't be an exception to (1). Although, for what it's worth, it seems to me that you can give a much easier reason than he did . . . such a retort from them would just be special pleading.

Anyway, you aren't asking why the universe can't be subject to (1). You are asking how we know that the universe can't be its own explanation. That wouldn't make it exempt from (1). But, then, it seems to me that if the atheist were to so retort, that the objection wouldn't be to (1) after all, but to (2). They could agree with (2) in principle but deny that the universe has an external cause, claiming that its explanation is necessarily of its own nature. You do seem to need a premise claiming that the universe needs an external cause.

Yes, I think you get me / it.

Jac3510 wrote:So I would suggest something like this:

• 1. Any property of a thing not identical with the essence of that thing is either caused by the essence or comes from outside.
  2. Essence cannot produce its own existence or it would be prior to itself.
  Therefore,
  3. if existence is not identical with essence, it must come from outside.
  4. The universe's existence is not identical with its essence
  Therefore,
  5. The universe's existence must come from outside.

And (5) here would be your missing premise, with 1-4 constituting sub-arguments. Yes, no?

Yes. So using your argument in support of the missing premise we would have...

• 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  
  2. If the Universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
  
  3. The Universe exists.
  
  4. The explanation of the Universe existing is not in the necessity of its own nature.
  
  • 4.1 Argument from Essence (?):
    4.11 Any property of a thing not identical with the essence of that thing is either caused by the essence or comes from outside.
    4.12 If existence is not identical with essence, it must come from outside.
    4.13 The universe's existence is not identical with its essence
    4.14 Therefore, the universe's existence must come from outside.
  5. Therefore, the Universe has an explanation of its existence in an external cause (from 1, 3, 4).
  
  6. Therefore, the explanation of the Universe's existence is God (from 2, 5).

Now, that is definitely becoming more air-tight.
A whole host of sub-arguments could be added in to reinforce premise (4).
For example, here are some others:

• 4.2 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
  4.21 An actual infinite cannot exist.
  4.22 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
  4.23 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
  
  4.3 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
  4.31 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
  4.32 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
  4.33 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
  
  4.4 Argument based on science ("Big Bang" cosmology):
  4.41 Whatever begins to exist has an external cause for its existence.
  4.42 The universe (time, space, energy and matter) has a beginning point in time (i.e., it began to exist).
  4.43 Therefore, the cause of the universe must be external.

And if people don't like these additional sub-arguments, then there are a whole host more that can be added.
For every non-refuted logical argument, the logical force and weight of (4) becomes heavier and heavier.

Such that, in order for someone to knock the argument off the table...
well, it would be easier that a person diverts their attention to some weakness in (1), (2) or (3).

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:PS #1 says everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. Does God have such an explanation also? If not, either #1 is wrong as written or God doesn’t exist.

Reconsider premise (1):

(1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

This seems straight forward -- either something has always existed according to its own nature, or it is contingent upon something other.
Note, the argument never says that the universe has an explanation of its own existence. Rather premise (2) says:

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

It could be the case that the universe is the non-contingent thing that exists "in the necessity of its own nature."

Not until (4) do we see it assumed that the universe has an explanation of its own existence. Right?
But, you can't get this from 1 & 3 as the argument says. So you're right that something is up with the argument as stated.

SO then, it seems that you accept (1) and (2). You just reject that it is the case that the universe has a cause for its existence:

Kenny wrote:Problem with this is the opposing argument will simply proclaim the Universe as the unmoved mover...

In other words you are saying that the Universe exists "in the necessity of its own nature."
Like what we Christians attribute to God. Because, geezus, something has to have existed in its own nature or else nothing else would.
You therefore actually agree with premise (1) and even concede premise (2) as stated with an "If".

Premise (1) is plainly obvious even to my 7 year old.
She laughed when I said to her "You know, nothing once existed." Responding, "then where did everything come from?"
Even she gets something has to have always existed. If a 7 year old gets it, then I don't believe it is out of reach of adults to understand premise (1).
So if adults don't get this (i.e., Dawkins ), then they're being purposefully ignorant or stupid.
Thankfully, you do seem to get this which is why you're reluctant to let go of "the Universe as the unmoved mover."

You therefore agree largely with the argument as a whole, if and only if the unstated and assumed premise that the universe has a cause for its existence can be proved. Right? I'd agree that the argument overshoots on that front. That is, it isn't immediately obvious to all that the universe does need a cause.

Most of it makes sense. 1,3, & 4 I will not disagree with because according to what little bit we know about the Universe it makes sense.
I think #2 is a big leap. It doesn’t take into consideration the countless other options possible. 150 years ago, nobody on Earth knew of germs; 1850’s technology couldn’t detect their existence.Today everybody knows of them because current technology can detect them. There could be things in space right before our eyes that current technology is unable to detect that could be the answer to many of the questions we ask and it may take another 150 years before we can detect them.

I think it is a leap to assume if something is responsible for the Universe, it is good, all knowing, fair, perfect, and all the other adjectives people attach to God. Suppose it were a flawed, evolved and imperfect being just like us?

Ken

@Kenny, your thoughts on the argument formulated as follows?

• 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  
  2. The Universe exists.
  
  3. The explanation of the Universe existing is not in the necessity of its own nature.*
  
  4. Therefore, the Universe has an explanation of its existence in an external cause. (from 1, 2, 3)
  
  5. If the universe has an explanation in an external cause, then that explanation is God.
  
  6. Therefore, the explanation of the Universe's existence is God (from 4, 5).

I believe this follows better notwithstanding additional justifications may need to be provided for a couple of points.

One point in particular that I think you would personally want further justification for is (3).
You can see some additional arguments in my previous post for the universe having a beginning (4.1 - 4.4).

(5) may also need further elaboration, if for example someone wishes to multiple universes prior to ours or the like
(although from some previous exchanges I had with you, you might just acknowledge God before going to this extreme?).

Kurieuo wrote:@Kenny, your thoughts on the argument formulated as follows?

• 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  
  2. The Universe exists.
  
  3. The explanation of the Universe existing is not in the necessity of its own nature.*
  
  4. Therefore, the Universe has an explanation of its existence in an external cause. (from 1, 2, 3)
  
  5. If the universe has an explanation in an external cause, then that explanation is God.
  
  6. Therefore, the explanation of the Universe's existence is God (from 4, 5).

I believe this follows better notwithstanding additional justifications may need to be provided for a couple of points.

One point in particular that I think you would personally want further justification for is (3).
You can see some additional arguments in my previous post for the universe having a beginning (4.1 - 4.4).

(5) may also need further elaboration, if for example someone wishes to multiple universes prior to ours or the like
(although from some previous exchanges I had with you, you might just acknowledge God before going to this extreme?).

I cannot go along with #3, I don't think we know enough about the Universe to exclude this option. As far as #5; as I said previously, I can't make the leap that whatever is responsible for the Universe is also kind, perfect, all knowing, and all the other adjectives people attach to God.

Ken

Kenny wrote:
I cannot go along with #3, I don't think we know enough about the Universe to exclude this option. As far as #5; as I said previously, I can't make the leap that whatever is responsible for the Universe is also kind, perfect, all knowing, and all the other adjectives people attach to God.

Ken

What we don't know about the universe (nature: space, time, matter) doesn't negate what we DO know. All of these type of arguments are really only asking, "what is MORE likely the case?" So, the burden of proof is on you to show that based on what we do KNOW that #3 is invalid. Cause and effect in physics is considered a law. What you are saying is that the law of nature is arbitrary and can be simply ignored at our convenience.

As far as #5, you've completely gone beyond the argument. That isn't the argument. So, your "leap" is a straw man and prejudicial.

Thanks Ken.

I appreciate your input.
You know there's lots of different arguments for God.
The points you raise have been responded to by many, and one point isn't the whole enchilada but can often backed by a many more supporting arguments
-- many of which have probably received serious discussion.

Arguments evolve all the time too. Take Aquinas' traditional arguments.
Some love using them just the way they are, but there are a plethora of adaptions to them today that have been developed through critiques and defenses.
In a way it's like an everlasting tug o' war.

Jlay has my own thoughts that in the broader view of things it is all about what is more likely the case.
We might personally believe this or that argument is a knock-down, but certainly there will never be a knock down argument everyone agrees upon.
People just don't work that way do we? We like to be disagreeable with each other.

I don't know why it is you turn away or took a turn away from God if you once believed
but having you comment on where you see weaknesses are helps provide me with direction for what justifications are needed for you and others like you.

I'm now thinking that over time I'll continually adapt and flesh out something like a framework argument,
and over time try to bring many of main arguments together as sub-arguments to each point, including those often made against His existence and main responses.
It will be like one big long argument, such that to dismiss one point, a person will ultimately need to evaluate two dozen or so sub-arguments.
At least that is how I picture it. Sounds like a good project. Something that interests me anyhow.

Combined together, and when all is said, I really think those who don't believe, or don't want to believe in God, are left with one big logical conundrum.
There is a reason I think why your positive Atheists of scientism types (Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking) want to proclaim philosophy is useless or dead.
They don't like the arguments, where they point, feeling cornered, having their bubbles popped when pulled up by logicians of reason.
I'm not just talking by "Theists" but even by "Atheist" practitioners of logic and reason. Ahh, now I'm rambling.

Anyway, I appreciate your input and hope you'll always provide more in the future.

Kenny wrote:
I cannot go along with #3, I don't think we know enough about the Universe to exclude this option. As far as #5; as I said previously, I can't make the leap that whatever is responsible for the Universe is also kind, perfect, all knowing, and all the other adjectives people attach to God.

Ken

jlay wrote:What we don't know about the universe (nature: space, time, matter) doesn't negate what we DO know.

What we don't know about the Universe means there may be options we are unaware of. We don't know enough to claim option A or option B is our only options, there could be an option C,D,E thru Z that we are unaware of that may sound just as ridicules to us today as the idea of invisible germs floating around making everybody sick would have sounded in 1850.

jlay wrote:All of these type of arguments are really only asking, "what is MORE likely the case?"

"More likely the case" sounds like a calculated guess to me.

jlay wrote:So, the burden of proof is on you to show that based on what we do KNOW that #3 is invalid.

As I said before, I don't have any answers; but I don't think we know enough to claim #3 is valid.

jlay wrote:Cause and effect in physics is considered a law. What you are saying is that the law of nature is arbitrary and can be simply ignored at our convenience.

Not quite; I am saying there may be laws of nature that we are unaware of right now.

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks Ken.

I appreciate your input.
You know there's lots of different arguments for God.
The points you raise have been responded to by many, and one point isn't the whole enchilada but can often backed by a many more supporting arguments
-- many of which have probably received serious discussion.

Arguments evolve all the time too. Take Aquinas' traditional arguments.
Some love using them just the way they are, but there are a plethora of adaptions to them today that have been developed through critiques and defenses.
In a way it's like an everlasting tug o' war.

Jlay has my own thoughts that in the broader view of things it is all about what is more likely the case.
We might personally believe this or that argument is a knock-down, but certainly there will never be a knock down argument everyone agrees upon.
People just don't work that way do we? We like to be disagreeable with each other.

I don't know why it is you turn away or took a turn away from God if you once believed
but having you comment on where you see weaknesses are helps provide me with direction for what justifications are needed for you and others like you.

I'm now thinking that over time I'll continually adapt and flesh out something like a framework argument,
and over time try to bring many of main arguments together as sub-arguments to each point, including those often made against His existence and main responses.
It will be like one big long argument, such that to dismiss one point, a person will ultimately need to evaluate two dozen or so sub-arguments.
At least that is how I picture it. Sounds like a good project. Something that interests me anyhow.

Combined together, and when all is said, I really think those who don't believe, or don't want to believe in God, are left with one big logical conundrum.
There is a reason I think why your positive Atheists of scientism types (Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking) want to proclaim philosophy is useless or dead.
They don't like the arguments, where they point, feeling cornered, having their bubbles popped when pulled up by logicians of reason.
I'm not just talking by "Theists" but even by "Atheist" practitioners of logic and reason. Ahh, now I'm rambling.

Anyway, I appreciate your input and hope you'll always provide more in the future.

Thank-you

K (The other "K")