Talk:Cosmological argument/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Objections and counterarguments introduction

I've added an original research warning to the "Objections and counterarguments" section in regard to the introduction of that section, which currently appears to be a citation-free rant with little connection to the rest of the section. Paul Vernaza (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This section pretty clearly needs to be revamped. I would propose putting any of the authors objections that are to be taken seriously into a new section titled something like "Plausibility of the Premises of Kalaam Cosmological Argument" (Since it seems to be the Kalaam variety that is being addressed) With two subsections one for each premise. These could futher be split up into criticism/response.

I think its important to include the objections he raises, such as quantum fluctuations undermining the first premise and the claim that something before the big bang could have existed and could have existed for an indefinite amount of time and hence does not require a cause. I think its also important to include responses along the lines of 1) the quantum fluctuations that generate virtual particles (assuming this is the QFs the author is speaking of) in vacuum are not a real example of something coming from nothing as the vacuum is not nothing but an absence of matter, certainly there is still empty space in which the physical laws governing the universe still operate.

As for the second criticism it seems unclear that this pre big bang state that has existed forever without a cause should not be put under the section of "identity of the first cause" since what the author is suggesting is in fact a first cause, just as concluded by the argument. The real question that remains is: why think this is "God" in the way humans tend to conceive of him.

Im going ahead and removing the citation free claims about the majority of philosophers/scientists ect. Morris249 (talk) 1 December 2011

Removed OR

The following section appears to my uneducated eye to be a synthesized argument.

The argument, again, in its most common form, is this:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Several objections can be raised to the above formulation: First, quantum fluctuations have been observed and seem not to be caused by anything. Thus the first premise of the argument is considered untrue. Secondly, the notion that the "universe began to exist" is highly speculative at best. Proponents of this argument are guessing that the universe began to exist, but this guess is based on nothing other than our ignorance of what happened before the big bang. By definition, we cannot claim that the universe did not exist in some form prior to the big bang, if we have no clue of what happened prior to the big bang. It seems that "The universe began to exist" is an Argument from Ignorance. Thirdly, just like we don't know if the universe began to exist or not, we have no way of knowing whether anything that might have caused the universe, did itself start to exist. Thus, as per the structure of this argument, whatever allegedly "caused" the universe to start existing, is itself predicated on some entity external to itself having caused it. Hence, the question: If God created the universe, what created God? Some would say that nothing created God and that God is infinite in time and has always existed.

If the editor who added it can provide reliable sources, I would have no objection to re-insertion. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang and Copenhagen.

If we assert that the Big Bang was a quantum event, and knowing that a frequently accepted notion of quantum paradoxes (The Copenhagen interpretation) asserts that the event does not resolve into discrete quantum space from statistical space unless it is observed then we may ask who observed the Big Bang.

If you do not like this question, well then OK. Its turtles all the way down anyway. I guess the search for ontological meaning gets confused with cosmological metaphysics whenever we think about it. This entire article is metaphysics and as such we may spin any theory we like provided is is self consistent. EdEveridge (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's really very clever, but the universe would be said to have “collapsed”, were it ever observed, while a notional universal wavefunction lends itself to an account of ongoing decoherence without stipulating a special role for the observer rather than the measure, (on any interaction with the universe She becomes entangled, but the superposition never truly “collapses”). So, for some interpretations of Copenhagen, it could just as well argue for Her non-existence, thus far…. Self consistency is negotiable, what was it Bohr said, behind every great truth? You're thinking of Math, no? Metaphysics traffics more in style and depthiness, or who would listen?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Big Bang can be said to be an event without requiring it to be a quantum event or invoking the Copenhagen Interpretation. It is quite clear that the Big Bang happened. This does NOT imply "turtles all the way down". Proving conclusively that it is a quantum event is more difficult. Proving that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the correct one has not been done by anyone. Since there are at least 3 interpretations of QM, there may be more that we haven't thought of. Lehasa (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of Cline Quote to the identity of the first cause?

I've been involved in some recent edits to the "Identity of the first cause" section. Historically, you see, the Aristotelian apparatus taken for granted by medieval philosophers provided a means for making the connection between an unmoved mover and an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect being. So, citing Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles, I added a paragraph to that effect to the "Identity of the first cause" section. It was replaced by another user, one apparently as friendly to the cosmological argument as I am, who eliminated the reference to Aquinas and replaced it with a quote from Ganssle. (as an aside, Ganssle doesn't seem to note that Aquinas' proof of God's attributes required the Aristotelian apparatus, which is something that needs to be noted. I'll see if I can find a source for that tidbit, I have a couple books by Edward Feser that might do the trick)

Now, this is an encyclopedia. Anyone who wants the page to be neutral, when they see that someone added something in favor of the cosmological argument (especially in a section devoted to criticisms of it!), will want to add something against it to balance things out. That is an understandable, even admirable, impulse for an editor intent on keeping up the quality of this page to have. I have no problem with that impulse. I don't even have a problem with the addition of some statement from a critic of the cosmological argument to balance out my edit. What I have a problem with is the specific statement that was used in this case.

The statement added was one by Austin Cline. I quote: Another objection is that the argument concludes that a “god” exists, but if so, this god must have a cause (according to the same argument). This leads to an infinite regress of causes (gods) unacceptable to the theist, so most believers make an exception for their god, asserting that it doesn’t need a cause — but there is no obvious reason why this exception cannot be applied to the universe, too. If a god “just is,” why can’t the universe “just be?”

I have no problem with the content of the Cline quote. It's a valid objection to the cosmological argument, especially the unsophisticated forms used by pop apologists. My problem is with its location. It has absolutely nothing to do with questioning the identity of the first cause. As such, it doesn't belong in the section "Identity of the first cause." It just doesn't fit. It makes no sense where it is.

There does seem to be a place where it would fit in, however. That place would be the section immediately above the one I edited: "What caused the first cause?" That section already takes note of Cline's objection, but reduces it to a single sentence, "The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt."

My suggestion is this: that the Cline quote be removed from the "Identity of the first cause" section (possibly to be replaced by an on-topic quote from a different critic, or a statement that proving the divine attributes requires an Aristotelian framework), that the one-sentence summary of his position in "What caused the first cause" section be deleted, and that the summary be replaced by the quote itself. Or else, the quote could be placed after the summary. Really, anything that gets the Cline quote to the section it belongs in would improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.40.240 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

First cause.

Everthing that we observe has a beginning, it exists and it has an end. This can be noted symbolically as (0<u<1), where '0' is the beginning, 'u' is the point 'now' in which there is consciousnes of the observer and '1' is the end and the totality of existence. Consciousnee of the observer of his 'self' allows him to observe Nothingness of the duality of the limits of '0' and '1'. However there is no independent Nothingness because there is an observer. But Nothingness does exist as the observer of '0' and '1' and the difference between them because there is no past of (0<u) when 'u' is the identity of '0'. The three elements, those of the beginning, the difference and the end, are the static and invariable identity of one Nothingness and they are the Nothingness. By observing the duality of '0' and '1' the observer creates difference between the two. The difference is located inside the one Nothingness Observation of the duality changes it into four elements. The difference between two and four motivates for the next observation which changes four into eight elements and so on in steps of 2 to power of 'n' parts 1/2 to power of 'n', for all 'n' in (0<n<oo) within the static '1'. The internal dynamism cannot be stoped. KK (78.146.73.231 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)). The three elements of the eternal, static, Trinity, namely those of the observer, of that which he observes and of the difference between the two, can each change idividually in itself but not replace each other. When the observer is perfect he is NOthingness of the I and he is identical with himselve as that which he observes. The diference is also Nothingness. The observer, in that state, observes static duality as the reflection of that duality within himself. This creates four elements, two on the inside and two on the outside. By oberving the four elements, motivated by the difference, he creates eight elements and so on, growing as 2 to power 'n' in each new observation for all (0<n<oo). The result is dynamism within the static '1'. KK (81.159.57.213 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

The talk page is for suggesting or debating changes to the article. The relevance of the above to such a suggestion or debate (or, for that matter, to the article in any way) is not clear. Is the editor recommending that it go into the article? It reads to me like tangential Original Research. TheScotch (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Status of the Cosmological Argument in modern philosophy?

The article currently maintains that "[The] cosmological argument is one of which many Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and other theists all around the world believe gives proof that their version of God does exist as he is the only logical cause of all effects in our universe. Many other philosophers have posited cosmological arguments both before and since Aquinas."

Both of these statements may be literally true, but neither says anything about the status of the Cosmological Argument in modern philosophy nor does the article as a whole seem to. I suspect that the Cosmological Argument has had in philosophy virtually no serious standing for well over a century, that it is generally considered to have been categorically refuted, but I have no citations with which to establish that this is indeed the case (or for that matter that it is not the case). I object also to the way the statements are expressed, which strikes me as implicit POV: 1) "Many Christians" is not necessarily most Christians, and my sense is that reputable theology has long ceased to attempt to prove the existence of God through analytical, logical argument. 2) "Since Aquinas" necessarily means since the thirteenth century. Aquinas died in 1274. It's rather more to the point whether historically significant philosophers have fairly recently (within the last century or so) "posited cosmological arguments". I suspect they have not. TheScotch (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore the phrase "as he is the only logical cause of all effects in our universe" sounds as if the article is taking a position. The passage as a whole is misleading. I'm removing most of it but leaving (for now) "other philosophers have posited cosmological arguments before and since Aquinas" to preserve the segue into the next section. TheScotch (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Terminology

The article mistakenly claimed that the "kalam cosmological argument" is simply the syllogism

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

This is apparently incorrect, at least in the sense given to the term by Craig (i.e. the guy who coined it in 1979). The syllogism is rather Craig's statement of the generic cosmological argument. He then goes on to distinguish three types of justification for the minor premise, "the universe began to exist". It has to be remembered that this was far from uncontroversial until recently (the 1960s, when Big Bang cosmology became mainstream). Based on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, Craig distinguishes three types of arguments intended to support the minor premise:

• Aquinas, arguing "the impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress"
• the argument from the impossibility of an actual infinite, which Craig attributes to Al-Ghazali and terms "the kalām cosmological argument"
• the principle of sufficient reason from 18th-century philosophy

Now it seems that "kalam cosmological argument" has come to mean simply "cosmological argument" regardless of the distinction of how the minor premise is argued. This is sloppy terminology. I suspect that "the kalam argument" as a term for "the cosmological argument" arose in popular debates on Craig and his critics in the atheist-creationist debate, even when Craig's actual definition of the term was being ignored.

So, for example, if you argue about the nature of causality, you are not discussing the "kalam argument", you are simply discussing the generic cosmological argument. Only when you talk about the point that the universe cannot have a beginning "because -- actual infinites" are you addressing Craig's kalam cosmological argument.

Since in the modern popular debate, both sides (atheists and creationists) agree that the universe had a beginning (thanks to Big Bang cosmology), the need to defend the minor premise has sort of fallen out of the debate, and Craig's typological distinction of cosmological arguments along with it.

My analysis may be wrong, but this is the vibe I picked up from the more confused portions in this article and the one at kalam cosmological argument.

--dab (𒁳) 11:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

John Philoponus

I think the article needs more Philiponus and less about contemorary proponents: John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation "JSTOR: John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation". JSTOR. Retrieved 21 March 2015. J8079s (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This work was used for citations twice in the article. I think it has been used as a lazy citation. The page cited does not coincide with the article topic, which starts on page 550, not on 233. Also, it looks as if someone has written OR about the topic and used the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy V2 p 233 as a false citation. I've killed one - one to go. Myrvin (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing "Who caused the first cause?" counterargument

This counterargument doesn't add anything to the article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cosmological_argument#Counterarguments_in_this_article_are_just_rubbish).Mpdunson (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)mpdunson

Can someone please edit this section? I'm sure there is some compromise between removing this section and leaving it as it is. However, I'm not a defender of the "who caused the first cause counter argument. Every point in this counter argument has already been addressed. Is there anything more to the argument?Mpdunson (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)mpdunson

Counterarguments in this article are just rubbish

Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He gives an example— "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving EXCEPT THE WALLS OF A CONTAINER."

I added the words at the end of phrase

Well that's because if you stop a gas molecule it becomes a solid (though even solids vibrate). If there was no side of the container the gas molecule would just keep going until it hits something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.173.222 (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is which form of the cosmological argument Kaku tries to attacks. Because there is a Problem that, as far as I have read, hasn't yet been adressed in the above example. The movement of the gas molecules are finite and you will not recieve an actual infinite (gas molecules moving) by adding up (finite) movements. "..could move forever, without beginning or end". Well they COULD move forever as an potential infinite - but they can't as an actual infinite. The cosmological argument speaks of an actual finite - the universe - though. Thus I don't see what Kaku brings to the table. Even if we were to look across this point: Then of course the gas molecules could be moving without beginning and without an end and then surely they wouldn't need any cause. It is vitally important to understand the different cosmological arguments though! Kaku's argument does nothing for instance to the Kalam cosmological argument as formulated by William Lane Craig, as his form of argument is that the universe actually HAD a beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.187.235.79 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling counterarguments rubbish is formally poor argumentation. Attempting to say there is no first cause because an argument is formally poor does not get at the problem in the first place. Context does not attribute essential characteristics to a things nature unless we're arguing for contingency being that which attributes essential characteristics to the nature of anything. Buddhism does make this claim, so its not off the table, but we're attempting to explicate specific propositional stances of several arguments here are we not?— Preceding comment added by Aletheus (talk • contribs) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought this section was about evaluating whether a certain counter argument merits mention. In response to the post above this article isn't defending the existence of God based on strawmanning the non-deistic explanations. It's based on 3 axioms and uses deductive reasoning based on these axioms.

In addition the argument explains why the contingent being required for the existence of the universe must/likely have/has attributes deist attribute to God and God only. For example, the argument posits that omnipotence is plausible and Aseity required. Omnipotence because it's brought into existence everything out of nothing and Aseity because it's an uncaused cause. A being with all the characteristic of God and God only must be God otherwise they're not characteristics of God only. Whether these attributes belong to God only could be place in a criticism section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Specific_attributes.

Some of the counter-arguments aren't fully developed and have no citations. The "What cause caused the first cause?" section doesn't add anything to the article. In the following sentence an answer is given and no rebuttal is made.

whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the various arguments, emphasizing that none of its major forms rests on the premise that everything has a cause

Either attack that defense or concede. Furthermore, Hume argument that causality may not have always existed isn't defended. The cosmological argument doesn't have to prove the existence of God it just has to prove that the existence of God is more plausible then it's alternative.

A belief that not everything had a cause in the past is possible, but not plausible. If we can't use current experience to defend the premise that everything has a cause then what can we use. I wish we could see things popping into existence out of nothing today! It seems really convenient that this law of nature all of a sudden ended in the last 10,000 years or so.

In order for a counterargument to merit mention in this article it should be plausible. It doesn't have to be more plausible just somewhat plausible. For example, I have some theories on why the moon landing didn't happen that I can add to apollo missions if you'd like ;). The "What cause caused the first cause?" counterargument does not present a plausible alternative and it should be removed and/or placed somewhere else or better developed.

Maybe someone could create a page explaining this argument (the Münchausen trilemma is an Epistemological argument not a criticism of the cosmological argument. This reference should be removed too) and then put a synopsis in here instead. — Preceding comment added by Mpdunson (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is the second paragraph of the "identity of the first cause" even there? These arguments are meant to refute the central point of the cosmological argument - God exists. If the atheist concedes that God exist then the deist has won! If you want to debate the nature of God then that belongs in a criticism section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Specific_attributes.Mpdunson (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

removing second paragraph of "Identity of a First Cause"

The second paragraph of the "identity of the first cause" doesn't belong in this article. The arguments in this section are meant to refute the central point of the cosmological argument - God exists. If the atheist concedes that God exist then the deist has won! If you want to debate the nature of God then that belongs in a criticism section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Specific_attributes.Mpdunson (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Mpdunson

Causal loops and chains

These parts have become garbled and ungrammatical, although edited lately by only one contributor. It must be severely edited. Myrvin (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "Existence of causal loops" subsection of "Objections and counterarguments" section is not really a rebuttal per se of the CA. It is a challenge to the CA's *conclusion*, but there are plenty of other arguments (e.g. existence of evil) which also do that but which don't belong here. So I don't see a need for this particular example either. Objections to the CA should attack the CA *specifically*. I propose that subsection simply be removed. Sleety Dribble (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cosmological argument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511144628/http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html to http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Proton and Electron Immortality

Only in theory do the Proton and Electron Decay. Q.v. Wiki articles on Proton Decay, the Proton and Electron respectively. They do not require creation at all. If one reversed time, even to a theoretical "Big Bang," or other more spurious creation; Hydrogen (a Proton and Electron) could "observe" that creation unaffected. No theory required. Fact dismissing the Cosmological Argument. "Big Bang" is a theory. Immortality, real immortality of a Proton, is a reality. Finally, Proton/Electron decay, only a theory.GESICC (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

...and this is based on a single 1969 ref? What's with the overuse of caps? Vsmith (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't guess as what reasons you see more references are required, however, provide your reasoning, and I will gather references for the assumptions you've observed. A 1969 reference is an excellent reference.

Currently, theories are the only "evidence"and these contradict the overwhelming number and amounts of observations: Since the theories are they do decay, and for creation, but the overwhelming evidence is they do not, there is no reason to suspect otherwise. Those theories should be left to articles on theoretical physics, not the Cosmological Argument.

You should also review the wikipages cited with their own references and citations, these are not the positive foundations of the entry, however, If you desire I will cite those more completely. I did consider this, and it made the entry unwieldy and confusing.

"Overuse of caps." Using "Proton" as a proper name vs. in the generic is a convention. Gold the element, vs gold as currency for example. Wiki does not use this convention, withdrawn, and thank you for calling it to my attention.

If you have suggestions for improving the quality of writing, I will be grateful to receive them, or feel free to improve it in Wiki's spirit!

Respectfully yours, GESICC (talk)

I've removed the entry again. While the OP dealt with the caps, it's still tangential, poorly written, poorly sourced and generally dubious. Acroterion (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The one reference supports the entry, as do the state of the art in physics, it is not "tangential." Theory does not contradict observation, by any standard. "Dubious" requires justification. Poorly written suggests improper grammer or language. Please provide solid rationale for your "one-word," claims or undo revision. Thank you. GESICC (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You have had weeks to review and discuss your objections, it is very poor form to object now. GESICC (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Does the source you cite, by Ishfaq Ahmad, specifically address the Cosmological argument? Or is it just about proton decay? I ask, because the identical citation, including page number, is given at Proton decay, but it is not cited there in the context of the Cosmological argument. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please state your objection in the form of an objection. Asking questions like that always make the asker seems wise, but they always have an agenda or word-trap behind them, wiki is not the place for that sort of game. I'll be happy to address honest criticism. GESICC (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it a difficult question to answer? I'm wondering if the somewhat obscure source you cite here: [1] is directly relevant to the subject of this article, namely the cosmological argument about god, or if that source is simply about proton decay. Either way, knowing this would facilitate discussion. We are, of course, concerned about synthesis and original research. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is not difficult to answer, but neither is whether we should pay Caesar his tax. This kind of discussion is better suited to a religious blog.

Bottom-line, the reference seems be a point of contention, however it does what it needs to do: The information on partical decay, and default immortality is common place enough - do you want another reference? I would believe the current one matches the claim. If there are other claims I am making, you should be stating those assumptions.

You do indeed seem to be concerned about the argument for God, this does come down against that position, but you should not be attempting to game the system for your beliefs. Please state your objection in the form of an answerable objection, as I see it, the entry is sufficient. 96.240.142.229 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC) GESICC (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What I'm concerned about is our need to cite sources for the content at hand. The cosmological argument, here, seems to be that since protons don't seem to decay there is no need for there to be a god to created them. Independent of whether or this even makes sense ... Do we have a source we can cite for this particular argument about god? Or do we only have sources concerning protons? If the former, then fine, if only the latter then we can't include this as a cosmological argument. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that assertion seems to be protecting God from science. I am not making the assertions you claim, which I add, is another protectionist tactic by religionists, having no place on Wiki. I am afraid I am going to have to declare you biased. I remain willing to satisfy any reasonable request. Otherwise, you should default. 96.240.142.229 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)96.240.142.229 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm an atheist, but that is irrelevant. What we need is a source concerning the cosmological argument that rests on the non-decay of the proton. Did you make this up? If not, then where did it come from? Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That's right. Sources need to discuss the subject of the article, otherwise it's original research which isn't allowed. There's also the issue of significance - see WP:UNDUE. If there's only one source for a statement it would rarely be significant enough to include in the article. Some people think a reliable source is sufficient, but that's not the case. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is perfectly fine to cite cross-discipinary references. Claims needs references, not subject-matter. Are you really hoping for a philospher to cite physics? But of course references exist; let's start here, what are your objections to this? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ GESICC (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No mention of immortality. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is explained in the preceding comments. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not explained by preceding comments, reading the entry would have demonstrated that - these two entries, are unoriginal works from philosphy and state exactly what was stated: Rowe, William, 1962, “The Fallacy of Composition,” Mind, 71: 87–92. –––, 1975, The Cosmological Argument, Princeton: Princeton University Press. –––, 1997, “Circular Explanations, Cosmological Arguments, and Sufficient Reasons,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 21: 188–199. Rundle, Bede, 2004, Why there Is Something rather than Nothing, Oxford: Clarendon Press. That should settle it: Physics references and philosophical references. GESICC (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A search of The Cosmological Argument[2] doesn't find either "proton" or "electron". We need verifiable quotations that say that the proton and electron are immortal and discuss this immortality in relationship to the cosmological argument. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug, I make no mention of "immortality" in the entry either, only this "Talk" page. Dismissing the entry has now resolved itself to one of vocabulary? "Eternal" is used, but if you prefer, it is no issue at all to better match those, or any of the other authorities' vocabulary: What term will you find unobjectionable? Respectfully submitted, GESICC (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Works, the other way around, what text do you want to use, what source, and a quote from the source if it isn't easily available. Then I can respond sensibly. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I propose: We start with an outline, and build up. That way I don't do 'alot' of work, and you don't object-after the fact: Seams peaceable to me:

To wit;

Title: Argument from Physical Sciences

Part I: Conservation of Energy states matter can neither be created or destroyed. This is what is what is observed. [References]

Part II: Philosophers claiming the same thing, references qv above.

Part III: The only contrarian arguments to this are hypothetical models, with no observed data. [references to quantum-chromo, proton decay theory, etc.]

Is this a good approach step? Respectfully submitted, GESICC (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How about starting with a reliable source that summarizes this issue? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the "Conservation of Energy" will be trivial. Reliable Sources for summarizing the Philosophical are above, the Philosophical authors who observed CoE refutes the Cosmological Argument. Reliable sources for non-observed hypothesis I will find. This is the fourth non-constructive contribution you've made to this dialog. GESICC (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The request was reasonable. Sources for CoE that doesn't discuss the cosmological argument can't be used here in any case. I've already said sources have to discuss it. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug, the references clearly discuss the Cosmological Argument. Here, again: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/ , Stanford Press did you the courtesy of posting the references online.

Here's a quote from Rundle: "Matter has necessary existence, for though it undergoes change, the given volume of matter found in the universe persists, and as persisting matter DOES NOT HAVE OR NEED A CAUSE. This accords with the Principle of Conservation of Mass-Energy, according to which matter and energy are never lost but rather transmute into each other." GESICC (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see arguments and discussion about conservation of energy in the Stanford source, and it seems interesting. Perhaps that sort of argument can be included in the article. Recall, however, that this discussion got started on the assertion that since photons and electrons don't apparently decay, the cosmological argument could be dismissed. This might not be the same as conservation of energy. I suggest sticking with what the reliable sources say. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

To wit;

Title: Argument from Physical Sciences

Part I: Conservation of Energy states matter can neither be created or destroyed. This is what is what is observed. [References]

Part II: Philosophers claiming the same thing, references qv above.

Part III: The only contrarian arguments to this are hypothetical models, with no observed data. [references to quantum-chromo, proton decay theory, etc.]

Is this a good approach step? Respectfully submitted, GESICC (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Any CONSTRUCTIVE insight?

Note, not observing proton or electron decay is not the same as energy conservation. At least, not as far as I understand. Proton non decay would be type of conservation, an example. Conservation of energy is a more general principle. Again, I suggest following the sources. In this case they seem to be about conservation of energy, though the Stanford source does not seem to depict conservation of energy (nor Rundle's argument) as a convincing reason for dismissing the cosmological argument. Having said that, I'm happy to be corrected. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So you have noted before, and I would have greatly appreciated this comment had I received on this talk page, before the entry was posted. Proposed way forward:

To wit;

Title: Argument from Physical Sciences (Any objections?)

Part I: Conservation of Energy states matter can neither be created or destroyed. This is what is what is observed. [References] (Good approach?)

Part II: Philosophers claiming the same thing, references qv above. (Good approach?)

Part III: The only contrarian arguments to this are hypothetical models, with no observed data. [references to quantum-chromo, proton decay theory, etc.](Good approach?)

Is this a good approach step?

Any insight or objections? Respectfully submitted, GESICC (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the relevance of Part III (your original argument from non-observation of proton decay)? If protons did decay, what would be the implications? I've not seen a source that discusses proton decay in the context of the cosmological argument. Otherwise, are you proposing something new? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Part III supports Parts I & II by stating that there are only non-observed hypothesis contradicting parts I & II. They provide intuitive elaboration for I & II. GESICC (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That a particle is not observed to decay only indicates that something has not changed. When something does change, then conservation of energy becomes an interesting concept. So, when a particle decays, it is observed that energy is conserved. But all of this is a long way from dispensing with the cosmological argument. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but despite your insistance of (the lack of) particle decay being the primary references for the entry, it is not, it has not ever been. Only supporting detail: The lack of the observance of these things only provides counter point to Parts I & II, which are the reality and the references.

So,

To wit, I have made important changes based on your insight;

Title: Argument from Physical Sciences (It looks like you agree this is a good title.)

Part I: Conservation of Energy states matter can neither be created or destroyed. This is what is what is observed. [References] (It looks like you agree this is a good approach.)

Part II: Philosophers claiming the same thing, references qv above. (It looks like you agree this is a good approach.)

Part III: The only contrarian arguments to Parts I & II are hypothetical models, with no observed data. [references to quantum-chromo, proton decay theory, etc.](I seem to have trouble making it clear Part III is ancillary, only important in counter-point and in elaboration; how should it be changed or improved, to make this clear?) Respectfully yours GESICC (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

How can you make it clear? Find a reliable source that discusses particle non-decay in the context of the cosmological argument. If there isn't one, then you don't need to discuss it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Part III is not meant to pertain to the CA, it is meant to pertain to support Parts I & II, which is perfectly valid. Perhaps this will assist: Since components of Part III do not exist (according to modern observations), except in popular theory, they ONLY exist as alternatives. If Part III is your only objection, well it can be removed. I still believe it will be stronger with the counter-points, and quite in line with Wiki-guidelines. Thank you for your indulgence. GESICC (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get Doug to mediate? GESICC (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think middle ground can be found SINCE, the non-observed, are just that, they exist only in theory. GESICC (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that I read through the talk pages, this isn't the first time that this type of entry has been advanced, and according to above 'authors,' refuted by anonymous vandalism.

I assume since there have been no counter-arguments, that you agree with the above outline. Or, more likely, you are waiting for me to write something, wait and get no objections, post something, and then undo it - and tire me out as you did the other authors. Not that I am skeptical - but I think I'll check in with them.  ;) GESICC (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you GESICC? Anyway, whatever is written should be supported by reliable sources, and it shouldn't be original research or synthesis. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You already agreed that this wasn't an original work. You also agreed above they were reliable sources. So what are your issues? Or are we ready to go to entry writing? GESICC (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen you write anything that was supported by reliable sources and not original research/synthesis. I said I found the Stanford source interesting, however. Note, I'm just an editor, and so I am just one of many contributing to wikipedia. If you write something, I hope you get good feedback. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's because we are trying to agree on an approach. So far I haven't written anything. Certainly I haven't written anything original. You found the Stanford source interesting, however, it does not seem you read it, as your comments toward it are inappropriate to the selections. Since you are not reading them, you have demonstrated a definitive bias. The sources are just fine, or you really should state why they are unacceptable in specific terms. So far, you have just seemed to appoint yourself the judge and jury, without reviewing the case. GESICC (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you start a new section with your suggested text sourced as you would do it in the article. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I knew you would chime in when Isambard Kingdom gaffed. It's the way it works on a debate site, tactics which Wiki should not be a medium for: I would suggest that objectors to the article actually follow the material I place on here rather than object off the cuff, and then substancelessly. Because, obviously I have posted the sources, and these are available above for objections, if you could find any, but you have not. IK wouldn't have made such glaring and incorrect assumptions if he had actually followed the link I provided. Surely you agree Doug, it is apparent that I am trying to have a reasonable conversation facing incredible bias? Also, apparently Kaku in his book 'Hyperspace' also expands on the topic, with conservation of energy dispelling the "first mover," principal also, since energy is not created or destroyed either... is there anything wrong with his book as a source? 96.240.142.229 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)GESICC (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems with "Scientific positions" Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"The theory is said to assume many aspects of how the universe came to be without scientific analysis, rather a monotheistic religious outlook. Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, considering current acceptable evidence does not verify a deity’s existence.

Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time, "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation"[cite this quote] - Carlo Rovelli. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[28] Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[28] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[28] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang.[29]"

This assumes that the Argument relies on temporal causation, which it does not. On the contrary, the Argument calls for an atemporal God who atemporally caused the first temporal thing so as to create time itself. (The "first temporal thing" could easily be the Singularity at the Moment of the Bang.)

In other words, it is precisely that nothing came before the Bang that validates the Argument, namely that running out of temporal causes necessitates an atemporal cause. (Note: A "cause" can be an object origin as well as an event cause, the latter being the colloquial use of the word. For example, matter-antimatter creations not caused by any event still originate ("are caused") by the field of neutral energy in which the particles separate.)

While I am suggesting placing this in the Article, if nothing else to bring that Section in line with WP:NPOV, I am still looking for sources from which to do so (other than my own paper, although if someone else were to cite me on here that would be a different story). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A breakdown of temporal causation does not necessitate an atemporal cause. If that was true, then an atemporal "First Cause" would require its own atemporal cause. To say that the First Cause is the only thing that does not require a cause (temporal or not) has already been refuted in the article as a case of special pleading; arbitrarily designating a cause as an uncaused/first cause does not equate to proof that this is the case. There's no good reason to delve into the distinction between temporal and atemporal causation on this page when both kinds are already covered. I'd also suggest that trying to avoid violating NPOV by advising that other people could cite your (already-refuted) argument is still a violation of the spirit of NPOV. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Since then, a published source has been cited in the Article saying exactly what I said when I opened this thread. Namely: Benjamin Victor Waters (9 July 2015). "Toward a new kalām cosmological argument". Cogent Arts and Humanities. 2.1:10.1080/23311983.2015.1062461. Retrieved 23 March 2017. In other words, the Argument does not require a strict interpretation of the A-Theory of Time despite many objections (over the centuries) to that effect. Your saying "A breakdown of temporal causation does not necessitate an atemporal cause" is an assertion, not a refutation. Anyway, the Article has been reorganized several times, and the specific Section here discussed no longer exists. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I just add - another big problem with the section is that it falsely suggests that the idea of "no before the big bang" is new, ironically ignoring the fact that Saint Augustine first stated this a millenium and a half ago...in turn quoted by Stephen Hawking. "As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe." [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frduane (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I stick that Hawking/Augustine quote in the Section in question? You know, for WP:NPOV reasons and such. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliable Source

@User:Apollo The Logician https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/cosmological-arguments-against-the-existence-of-god-726.html is a reliable source.Palazmer (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna say that, for a 2,500 year old concept, covered in basically every theology textbook ever written, we can probably find a better source than infidels.org. TimothyJosephWood 17:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You are right, Timothy Joseph Wood. For something as notable as the Cosmological Argument, there are numerous much better sources than Infidels.org. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Science and argument

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I deleted the section on the "scientific" positions on the argument as the entire section was seriously misleading. The so called motion from nothing is badly named. Certainly a body can move without having another body move it, but it doesn't simply move from nothing, it moves because it has a probability amplitude to move and so in some sense it has a cause making it move, the laws of quantum mechanics, which are not nothing. You might argue laws of physics are merely descriptions of things and not causes, but that is certainly an unresolved philosophy of science dispute.

As for there being no time before the big bang, first of all certain branches of M theory have claimed there existed branes before the big bang which caused the universe by their collision, so there are scientific investigations of what could or did occur before the big bang, causes and all. Plus it is easy to imagine a cause having an instantaneous effect that needed no time to occur at all, so having no time does not necessarily break down the concept of cause and effect.

Finally, there honestly is no general scientific consensus on whether there is or is not a necessary being, so there really is no scientific position on the argument, just opinions of some scientists, and those don't qualify as the scientific position on the matter, which currently doesn't really exist. Roy Brumback 05:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring this section. Several notable physicists have directly referred to the Cosmological Argument and fully cited facts are in that section, in context. The fact that Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking, two of the most prominent scientists in the world today, weighed in the subject and addressed whether it has a valid physical basis gives the section even more weight. Every modern physicists knows that the precepts of the cosmological argument (you cannot have motion without a mover) is no longer scientifically true. So, it is not merely 'the opinion of scientists'.--Primal Chaos 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry dude, as a physicist I know that there is not any generally accepted position on whether the universe had a prime mover or whether one was necessary or not or whether there is a necessary being. Our only two cites for this section, which claims the argument has been scientifically refuted, which is not true, are a popular science book and a popular science lecture. Now I'm not disrespecting Kaku or Hawking, but Hawking's statement that there was not time before the universe began is not his, it goes back to Augustine of Hippo, which Hawking says in I believe A Brief History of Time, and so is not in opposition to any basic Christian philosophy about God. And as I pointed out, physicists and cosmologists do investigate what might have happened before the big bang. It's not a scientifically meaningless question as this section is trying to claim. And Kaku's description of the molecules in the jar not being moved, as I pointed out, is not motion from nothing. The molecules had to have a probability or potential to move. The reason things can move without another body moving them is they had a probability to move based on the uncertainty principle. When you ask physicists why a particle just started moving or why for instance the particles are generated in a vacuum, they would say because of the uncertainty principle and the laws of quantum physics. That's implying a cause. There was a cause for the motion or the creation, not something out of nothing. Now laws of physics and probabilities are not nothing. And where did they come from? Hawking I believe in a actual paper he wrote had the universe jumpstarted from a primeordial wave function, see Hartle-Hawking state, but where did that come from? And this idea, as most ideas about the initial conditions of the universe, has been in no way accepted by all or even most scientists. So unless it can be shown from a credible cited source that the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists hold that the cosmological argument has actually been scientifically refuted, not that they just don't personally accept it or something like that, we should not be making that claim. For instance the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes no such claim, and has several pros and cons for the argument based on modern science, including the example of vacuum motion and vacuum genesis. And as for popular science sources, Carl Sagan always held that the idea of a creator and generator of the universe had neither been proven nor disproven by science. Roy Brumback 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The cosmological argument is a logical argument for a prime mover, based on physical evidence. It's use by Christians is relatively recent (on the historical scale). It has little to do with Christian philosophy or the existence of God until extrapolations are made, and in its primal state, has nothing at all to do with religion, so you cannot attack the Science section on the basis of 'science intruding on religion'. The cosmological argument was initial formed as a logical conclusion, not a statement of faith. The physical 'facts' that point to a prime mover, envisioned by the Greeks and later extrapolated by others to mean 'the God of Abraham', cited earlier in the article, are not scientifically valid any longer, and that is made clear in that section.

Please note that the section includes the statement that a "purely scientific expression" of the Cosmological Argument is no longer possible, not that the argument itself is invalid. Just that citing the need for cause and effect to create a 'unmoved mover' as proof of some creative force at work hasn't been a credible scientific position for 150 years.

You seem to be doing quite a bit of original research in your claims here. Can you find a a neutral science book which offers a counterbalance the cosmological argument? The works I cited, one of them directly refers to the Cosmological Argument, by name, in a science book about the origins of motion and matter.--Primal Chaos 12:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth considering for a second what exactly the science refutes here - not the existence of God, which is impossible of course, but this basic form of the cosmological argument - "Since every motion is caused by a mover, there must be a prime mover who started the universe." Take note, it says, there "must be", not can be, not should be, not most likely is, but the Cosmological Argument says there -must be- a prime mover.

The science no longer backs that up - movement can come into existence without a mover, especially at the subatomic level. The idea that there must be, not "could be", not "might have been", a prime mover is what is now scientifically wrong. The cosmological argument, once considered a theistic slam dunk, is now scientifically debatable.--Primal Chaos 12:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the argument is scientifically debateable, but I disagree that modern science has shown that movement can come into existence without a mover. Only if you say the mover must be a body has this been challenged, but the mover in for instance vacuum motion is in fact the potential for motion inherent in all things. It's not as if something just starts moving for no reason at all, it moves because of the uncertainty principle, which might or might not be a cause, but is certainly given as a reason for things like vacuum motion, not usually as just a description, which goes back to my original statement about laws of physics being causes vs descriptions, which is an unresolved argument. As it's currently written it says there are scientific refutations of the arguemnt such as vacuum motion, which in fact some people think this might refute it and some don't, but we are having this stated as fact, which is not the case. Roy Brumback 00:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Find an appropriate counter-reference in a valid scientific work about the cosmological argument. I've found two that directly refer to the cosmological argument and say it is no longer a scientifically valid precept. If there really is a divergence of opinion in science about this, it should be not trouble to find another one to back you up from a reputable neutral source. If there is another valid scientific position about the necessity of a prime mover, it should be up there next to the others, not simply removing the positions you do not agree with.--Primal Chaos 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the edits Roy Brumback made to the scientific section, given the small revisions and copy-edits I've already done. Are you happy, Roy, and if so, can we remove the disputed tag?--Primal Chaos 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The page clearly says the argument involves the first cause, not just the first motion. And this brings up another problem. It seems this page combines the first cause, first motion, and necessary being arguments all into one cosmological argument, but Aquinas for instance clearly held them as three separate arguments. I believe Kant argued they were all clearly the same argument, but also held that the cosmological argument was really just the Ontological argument. Should they be split, as it seems they once were? And as for the molecules bouncing, they could I suppose absent gravity bounce around forever in both directions of time, but science clearly currently holds there was a beginning to all motion and things have not been bouncing around the universe forever. The problem with this is citing Kaku's opinion in his popular science book as some kind of rebuttal to the argument, whereas an actual good cite would be an actual peer reviewed paper on the matter, but I highly doubt such a paper exists as there is no scientific position held as fact by most scientists as to whether there was or was not a first cause. As for as I know science doesn't really deal with what has to be, only what experiments have shown is, and no experiment has ever shown there was or was not a first cause or whether one has to exist or not. Roy Brumback 02:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your second round of edits. Does the section now stand as written?--Primal Chaos 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify, the reason I added the scientific positions section was I though the scientist's outlook on the "proof" provided by the argument was inherently separate from the philosopher's counterarguments presented above. They are two very different fields, with very different standards, but both with interesting and important things to say about the cosmological argument. --Primal Chaos 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do not want me to remove the tag, respond in less than two weeks to comments made here. I agree with the clarifications you have made (as above), this section no longer qualifies as totally disputed. You have edited, clarified and otherwise changed the article to a more neutral tone that I can only assume we both agree with since you made the edits and I agree with them.

Unless you just want the tag itself up there to undermine the section for your own religious purposes, make your objections more plainly known so they can be dealt with, rather than reemerging after a month to add it back in while responding to no comments here. If I sound irritated, I am.--Primal Chaos 01:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not assuming good faith. I never gave a religious reason for the dispute. I said it is untrue that there is any scientific disproof of the cosmological argument, which is a fact. I undid your removal fairly quickly, not taking two weeks. I've been busy with other things besides editing here and I said I will clean this up when I have a chance. As the article currently stands it says this:

The later development of the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century and quantum physics in the 20th century have severely weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.[11]

Modern physics is rife with examples of 'movement without any mover', seriously undermining the first premise of the cosmological argument, that every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion.

As I pointed out, the first statment is just Kaku's opinion and needs to be labeled as such. The second is untrue as I keep pointing out to you that the first mover argument and first cause argument are not taken as the same by everyone and the page clearly says the argument involves the first cause, which has nothing to do with one "object" moving another. I am disputing these statements as some kind of scientific fact, which they are not, so I'm keeping the tag on there until this is fixed. Roy Brumback 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea that it is impossible for the universe to exist without a first cause, therefore there must be a first cause, is scientifically untrue now. There may have been a first cause, but it's no longer necessary, so according to modern physics, the cosmological argument proves nothing. That is a scientific fact - motion no longer requires a mover, and that is the pivot the entire argument moves around. I have provided three sources of verifiable information that basically states that, and backs up the section as written. I have been waiting, for months, for you to provide any verifiable sources to back up your claims of inaccuracy or inobjectivity toward the section.

If I don't see sources in two weeks, I'm removing the tag and sending this into arbitration. You don't like the section, that's fine, but you need to back up your claim, rather than just keeping up a tag there until something you don't like but can't show your research on is changed, just because you don't like it and it needs to be "fixed".--Primal Chaos 11:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already provided one, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which clearly makes no such claim that the universe according to modern science needs no first cause and has points to the contrary. Please read section 4.1 as it clearly debates whether what you call movement without a mover, which is really just quantum indeterminacy, weakens the casual principle or not and clearly says the issue is not resolved currently. You have only provided Kaku's opinion in a popular science book which is not a scientific work in the strict sense and Hawking's lecture, which does not in any place say any such thing like the universe needed no first cause, it only states he thinks the question of what happened before time is scientifically meaningless, but that was, as I pointed out, not his but Augustine's, who he clearly gives credit to in a Brief History of Time, which this lecture is largely a summation of anyway. And the first cause, according to the argument, clearly happened at the beginning of time not before. I'll get your counter cites quickly as you seem distraught at all this. Roy Brumback 03:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How's that for now? Roy Brumback 02:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well done.--Primal Chaos 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the perpetual occurance of mirages of apparently uncaused phenomena throughout the entire history of science, it is no mystery why modern science congradulates itself on discovering the first real incidences of uncaused "self creation or self-moved motion. Note the huge difference between knowing that a thing is self-caused or self-moved and mearly suspecting or wondering if that may be the case. Before scientists found out about atomic weights, they could have thought that different materials caused themselves to be heavier than others; and before nuclear chemistry, there was no known cause for what made gold to be gold; and before Newton, there was no known cause for the falling of apples from trees. It is the very nature of physical science to continually pioneer into new areas where no mind has gone before in order to always be discovering new facts, new forces, new particles, and always new things for which, since these are brand new, they have no idea what may be their actual cause. Sometimes science moves a lot slower than it wants, taking decades or even centuries to finally and laboriously discover what causes what. That is the very nature of science - to always have unsolved effects that keep us forever searching, searching for the ever-changing causes for our ever-expanding universe of knowledge of the causes of things. By induction we can confidently conclude that since scientists had unsolved causality problems a thousand years ago, more advanced causality problems nine hundred years ago, even more advanced causality problems eight hundred years ago, and so on, therefore, we must expect to always have these causality issues which will eventually be solved even as most older causality issues have in fact been solved. For every new fact or discovery, we may ask, "Now why is this so?" or "What causes this to be so?". Its the very nature of new discovery to constitute a new question. This is the best science can hope for : new knowledge always engendering new questions. Its a great definition of science. Inductive logic infers that given enough time, every such question about the causes of things will be discovered by science. Therefore the principle of causation that everything finite must have a cause is inductively (i.e., scientifically) valid. Posted by Jerry P. T. Weaver, ageoftheology.com 216.185.104.163 00:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, 216.185.104.163, comments like that make me wish Wikipedia had a Like button. By the way, the modern Cosmological is a causes and origins argument, which has absolutely nothing to do with motion as such and everything to do with existence. Anyway, this thread appears to be inactive enough to close (and this Talk Page does not appear to be Auto-Archived). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tense and temporality

I think an useful consideration for editors here is to not assume that arguments (in particular for Aquinas' Five Ways) are necessarily based on a sequence in time, or at least limited to such a sequence.

On this note, I have changed the idea that the Universe must have been caused by something that was itself uncaused, to the idea that the Universe must be caused by something that is itself uncaused.

For example, in Aquinas' discussion of infinite causation in Summa contra gentile 38 [13] he excludes accidental causation (Socrates' grandfather) and non-immediate causation (the stone is moved by the stick, which is moved by the hand).Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No secondary sources @Argument from contingency

It's problematic. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

DOES Dr. Craig argue that the cause is omnipotent?

Dr. Craig only says that the cause of the universe according to the Kalām cosmological argument must be "unimaginably powerful, if not omnipotent". I have never seen him say the cause must be omnipotent as this article asserts. HalMartin (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)