mucilofamucil (mucilofamucil) wrote in shoresofavalon,
mucilofamucil
mucilofamucil
shoresofavalon

Cosmological Argument Revisited

I'm not an Aquinas fan or anything, but I do find these cosmological arguments to be very thought provoking and truth-expressing even if there is fault in the expression. I'm also an agnostic, so I've no emotional motivation for persuing this line of argument. Let's just have fun with this.

Basic cosmological argument, as ripped from wiki:

1. Everything has a cause(s).
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Therefore, everything is caused by another thing(s).
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause.


I think this is an interesting starting point. We know the objections to these arguments intuitively. However, I propose an alternate expression of this argument that holds more water.

Here are some objections that I wish to resolve:
Problem A) 1 and 5 form contradictions
Problem B) First cause doesn't imply a God
Problem C) God doesn't exist in time like we do, so 3 is absurd given our definition of causality as a connection between states over time

Rather than approaching God as a first cause, I will be approaching God as a first cause of our reality. This will circumvent the "Who made God" objection, as it does not pose a threat to the assertion that God made our reality.

A domain is a system of interaction between members of a set (rules and elements).
Reality is the set of all domains.
Cause is a connection between states over time.
Event is an action or a property within a domain.
The fundementals (the set of most basic/irreduceable events) of the physical domain are the boundaries of behavior that we refer to as time, gravity, causality, etc.

1. Every event in the physical domain has a cause(s) [Premise, Hard determinism]
2. No event in the physical domain can cause itself [Premise, Our domain's time is linear]
3. Therefore, every event in the physical domain is caused by another action [From 1 and 2]
4. The fundementals of the physical domain are consistent [Premise, causality is consistent and energy is conserved]
5. The fundementals of the physical domain are caused by substrates/elements not of the physical domain [From 2, 3, and 4]
6. Substrates/elements not of the physical domain exist which is to say there exists more than one domain in reality [From 5]

One large difference you may have noticed is my removal of argument 4 from the original argument. I believe that there can be an infinite chain of causality so long as a metacausal force is in esse. Since in esse metacausality is not impossible, infinite chains of causality are possible and premise 4 (from the original) is not needed for the proof's stability. That is to say, there can be a cause of all causes that is not bound by the system it creates. Intuitively, imagine yourself building a computer; that computer is bound by rules of operation that you are not bound by; the same goes for "God" or the metaphysical that is the bastion of our reality.

Problem A is resolved by distinguishing between different domains of causality. Problem B is resolved by specifying first cause as being of the physical domain (not absolute first cause), distinguishing the properties of the substrates of the physical properties as seperate from the boundaries of the physical domain, and relying on our intuitive association of the unbounded (metaphysical) domain with God. Problem C is resolved by recognizing that metaphysical events do not obey physical causality; basically, God doesn't have to play by our rules.

And for the record I am a determinist and would like to point out that quantum objection to the principle of sufficient reason assumes that all causes are local, when that is not necessarily the case. EDIT: Some very esoteric science concerning the EPR experiments may dispute this according to zentiger, so just be aware of that contingent evidence.

I'm going to cross post this to religious_debate, though I don't normally lurk there. They might have something interesting to say. http://community.livejournal.com/religiousdebate/356131.html


Thoughts, objections?
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 7 comments