Tuesday, March 24, 2009

The Cosmological Argument

When I used to argue with a Rabbi that I know, all he would say is ..... ooohh who created evolution? Oh, who created the big bang? Everything created must have a creator! Right? Are we sure? O.o Anyways this line of reasoning invites the contradiction of who created God, which is a contradiction that could be handled if the rabbi were to have taken a real philosophy class.

The cosmological argument goes like this-

1) The universe is in motion.

2) Everything in motion has to have something putting it in motion.

3) It is impossible for point 2 to be an infinite process because then there would be no first mover in the first place and thus no motion in the universe at all.

4) Thus by necessity, something infinite had to have already existed in order to create the finite physical universe.

Can we really be sure by merely an a priori method that the universe is finite? Or that time is finite? What if the universe goes through an endless process of expansion and contraction and expansion again? Can the cosmological argument in fact be the truth, except as a natural process and not in a theological way? Are we absolutely sure that everything in motion has to have something putting it in motion? The laws of physics could be different in different parts of the universe. We don't know. Is there a such thing as a being of pure infinity? With all this is mind, it don't mean that the cosmological argument for God is impossible. It's just not the be all end all.


jewish philosopher said...

Let's say sure beyond a reasonable doubt.

SJ said...

You would seriously come up here and proclaim that the laws of physics are the same throughout the whole universe?

SJ said...

Are you sure the universe don't just expand and contract and expand again?

Anonymous said...

yes, I spoke to Darwin, he told me it was only once. Then told me i was decended from a monkey, and that only the strongest survive despite the fact that there are so many hicks running around, and then anally raped a baby

Garnel Ironheart said...

{Sigh. Deep sigh}

The principles surrounding belief in God are metaphysical, hence they cannot be proven or disproven by science which deals with the physical.

The really big metaphysical principle abut God is that He is the First Cause, has always been, etc. So the universe can be contracting and expanding, something may have preceded the Big Bang, but God came before all of that. The rule that if someone exists something else must have created it doesn't apply to Him.

abandoning eden said...

2) Everything in motion has to have something putting it in motion.

so who then created god? The problem with this argument is infinite regression- if every effect must have a cause, the first causer must have a cause too. There can by definition be no first cause.

Garnel Ironheart said...

AE, the point of Judaism is that we believe there is an exception to that logic: God is, by definition, the First Cause. Nothing put Him in motion, nothing created Him, nothing preceded him. It is a metaphysical fact we believe in.

Anonymous said...

Actually 2 is wrong per quantum mechanics.

Garnel, the Jewish religion makes certain statements about the world, and these statements purport to come from what God handed down to Moshe. If we show scientifically those statements are wrong, then don't we have reason to question the Jewish concept of God.

Ichabod Chrain