Cosmological argument vs. LDS infinite regress

[johndoe]

Say a chain of causes exists, X caused Y and Y caused Z and Z caused etc..

Y is an effect of X, Z is an effect of Y and so forth. For one thing to cause another thing, the thing that was caused is finite, it did not exist before it was caused, you can take this out to infinity of course... but the point would be that finite causes can only fit within infinity they cant actually reach infinity because they are finite.

Your conclusion seems like a non-sequitur to me. It would be a good idea to read Ostler's reply to Craig and Copan that NoFear provided.

The cosmological argument falls because implicit in that argument is the idea that we must choose a finite starting point in time, which is an actual infinity removed from our current time. But it is not necessary to do any such thing. The past has always been progressing as part of the chain. What's more, one can take the set of the elements of the chain extending infinitely into the past, and call that set the First Cause. IMO, LDS doctrine has a First Cause as good as any other, that First Cause simply isn't equivalent to God.

I think it important to note that, given the assumption that God is absolute First Cause, any free will theodicy attempting to solve the Problem of Evil falls flat. If your beliefs lean to Calvinist ideas, that may not bother you, but if you have Arminian tendencies, I can assure you that your beliefs entail a logical contradiction.

[Frijaneen]

The hard concept to understand in it all is this- there has to be a beginning to the Gods, and then- the big question becomes what intelligent cause created the first God?

Finally!

Thank you for your post, Rob Osborn. I believe I have increased in intelligence from having read it.

Frij

PS. Having read JohnDoe's reply, I want to add my opinion that whatever intelligent cause caused the first God would be responsible for the damnation of Jack, even in Mormon theology. I am referring to the thread "Whose Fault Is It That Jack Isn't Saved."

[Brade]

Your conclusion seems like a non-sequitur to me. It would be a good idea to read Ostler's reply to Craig and Copan that NoFear provided.

The cosmological argument falls because implicit in that argument is the idea that we must choose a finite starting point in time, which is an actual infinity removed from our current time. But it is not necessary to do any such thing. The past has always been progressing as part of the chain. What's more, one can take the set of the elements of the chain extending infinitely into the past, and call that set the First Cause. IMO, LDS doctrine has a First Cause as good as any other, that First Cause simply isn't equivalent to God.

I think it important to note that, given the assumption that God is absolute First Cause, any free will theodicy attempting to solve the Problem of Evil falls flat. If your beliefs lean to Calvinist ideas, that may not bother you, but if you have Arminian tendencies, I can assure you that your beliefs entail a logical contradiction.

Excellent post John. It seems that the infinite regress problem crops up for theists of the non-LDS Christian sort. For example, if all creation is contingent (upon God), then where did God come from and how long has he been around? The response, as I understand it is to simply assert that God is timeless and so on. That's a fine response as far as it goes, but I don't see any reason why a Mormon can't make the same appeal but on slightly different terms. In other words, assert that the universe is timeless. Both lines of thinking, then, can assert a timeless thing. On one view it's God, on the other it's the universe (or multiverse, or whatever).

Also, I think your Problem of Evil point is a good one. If the necessary existing thing is a mind (i.e. God) instead of a non-mind (i.e. the universe) then solving the Problem of Evil becomes, well, infinitely more difficult (pun intended) should one have Armenian tendencies.

Lastly, John, I posted a criticism to the cosmological argument posted by Mudcat earlier. I was in a bit of a hurry when I posted it, and nobody has commented on it. Would you mind giving it the once over and let me know where and what my mistakes are, if any. Much appreciated.

PS. Having read JohnDoe's reply, I want to add my opinion that whatever intelligent cause caused the first God would be responsible for the damnation of Jack, even in Mormon theology. I am referring to the thread "Whose Fault Is It That Jack Isn't Saved."

Not if all beings, including Jack, have necessary existence.

[mfbukowski]

Excellent post John. It seems that the infinite regress problem crops up for theists of the non-LDS Christian sort. For example, if all creation is contingent (upon God), then where did God come from and how long has he been around? The response, as I understand it is to simply assert that God is timeless and so on. That's a fine response as far as it goes, but I don't see any reason why a Mormon can't make the same appeal but on slightly different terms. In other words, assert that the universe is timeless. Both lines of thinking, then, can assert a timeless thing. On one view it's God, on the other it's the universe (or multiverse, or whatever).

I agree.

I just noticed this thread. On the other one I posted the following in response to Frijaneen's comment

It is the consensus of the majority of the scientific community that the universe has not always existed.

I said:

Tell me about what "before the big bang" means? What happened "before" there was time?

There IS no "before" time. For that matter, there is no "IS" before the big bang, so it cannot be said that the universe has not "always" existed!

For it to not have "always" existed there would have to be a "time" before time out of which came the existence of time. Do you follow that? The time before time would be the "not always" part of the equation. It would be what defines the temporal "non existence" of the universe so that one could say that it "hasn't always" existed.

It would be the "zero" that creates the whole numbering system of time. But there can be no such zero, because it implies the very existence of the numbering system itself, which does not yet exist! So really, it is a contradiction!

Putting it another way one would have to be "standing" in a time before "time" to be able to say "this is the time when time does not exist" to make the statement "the universe has not always existed" true.

So if there was a big bang, it was when time started and we cannot even talk or know anything about a "before" that "event" if it can even be described as an "event" since events exist in time.

So is this a good argument or not?

Another argument in this vein is one the Pragmatists might make and that is that since we take time to be a priori, that is, it is so much a part of our experience time's non-existence, it becomes meaningless to talk about a timeless time, just as it is meaningless to talk about a reality we can never experience, a reality independent of experience or time. We cannot conceive of such a thing, so why bother with it?

And you and I ba, have talked about that one before.

[mfbukowski]

Oh. I just noticed my argument is almost the same as Ostlers? Oh well, at least I am in good company. I guess I should read more. Actually I have not read Ostler yet, but I am going by what johndoe said.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, all who disagree with me are senseless just like all apostates are lazy sinners who expected to be spoon-fed and never really had testimonies in the first place.

With a careful reading, I think you'll see that I called the "No First Cause" Mormon cosmology senseless, not those who may disagree with me. You may disagree with me, Mola, but I do not at all consider you senseless.

Also, my kindergartner is brilliant. There are very few people with an IQ higher than hers. I do not fall into the category of that very few myself. She's only six, so her knowledge base is quite shallow, but, oh, her potential! /ProudMomMode

I apologize for insulting you, Mola.

Now, can you tell me how the first intelligence/intelligences became corporeal gods?

Frij

This makes more sense. It just came across as a little well..... lets not worry about it.

Apology accepted.

I think any time we start talking about the eternities or infinity I don't think we can really comprehend it as we are used to dealing with time frames. Putting eternity in to a time frame is illogical to us. It sure is fun to speculate about though as there are a million ways to look at it.

I am sure your kid is smart and that is all the better for her. My kids sometimes out smart me. It is great.

[Frijaneen]

My kids sometimes out smart me. It is great.

My cat sometimes outsmarts me.

Frij

[BCSpace]

One of the dividing points between LDS and other Christians in how we view things is related to our understanding of how things came to be. Most Christians believe that God was the First Cause of all things.

LDS would certainly agree that God (this God) was the First Cause.

I for one, support the concept that there was a First Cause to all things and that First Cause was God. LDS seem to believe that God was not the First Cause. From my understanding, LDS believe God was caused/organized, and what caused God was caused/organized .. ad infinitum. I disagree with this.

I think the most any Christian, LDS or non, can claim is that God (this God) is the First Cause of this universe.

The premise for the Cosmological argument is simple...

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

I think LDS can gerenally agree with most of that. However, even science would disagee with #3 as before we knew how much matter was in the universe, it was theorized that if there was even slightly enough matter, the universe would eventually collapse in on itself and perhaps be reborn in another big bang and thus you would have an oscillating universe.

I would like you to either debunk this argument or defend an infinite regress of uncaused Gods as a logical alternative....

I consider the argument well debunked especially conisdering what science considers now; multiple universes. And the fact that even if you don't have a "regress" of Gods, you still have to ask what came before. It makes no sense at all, logically, scientifically, or scripturally, that God has always existed as God. He certainly relative to us and that would be LDS doctrine, but there is no information given in the scriptures to address things that are outside or that superceed this uiniverse. LDS have a padding of previous Gods that delays the need to answer this question whereas ex nihilo trinitarians must answer the question now because they've contraBiblically limited themselves to a single unique God.

[ERayR]

ERayR,

I was looking for Mudcat's non-mormon point of view. I understand your point, but I don't think that Mudcat subscribes to it. (However I could be wrong).

My point is that to just say that God is the first cause doesn't really address the issue. If nothing but God existed before the creation, then after sitting in nothingness for eternity, what made God change and do the creation thing?

The error you bring in is that you suppose that nothing but God exists before creation. Everything and everybody existed before the creation event.

The issue of "first cause" then transcends God and is still left unresolved. At least that is the way I see it.

In eternity (infinity) there can be no first cause only is. First causes can only be at a point in infinity. It has no meaning when infinity is discused as a whole.

[mfbukowski]

LDS would certainly agree that God (this God) was the First Cause.

An interesting statement.

On one hand, aren't you kind of begging the question by qualifying it to "this God"? On the other hand, this could demonstrate clearly that we are talking at cross-purposes here (ie: "first causists" vs. "non-first-causists")

It makes one wonder if we are all talking about the same thing on this thread at all.

It could be that those advocating a "first cause" position are ONLY talking about "this universe" and "this God" whereas the others of us are talking about a bigger picture.

I have always felt that way in speaking with Catholics- that they were right "as far as they went" but there was a bigger picture to be seen that they were not even looking at.

I felt that the LDS were answering questions the Catholics didn't even ask, and I suspect that is also the case with 90% of Creedal Christians out there.

[mfbukowski]

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Since I have come late to this thread, I would like to go back and start with the OP

"1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause."

The good news is, no one can disagree with that. The bad news is, it is not really saying anything because I believe it is like the proposition "A=A".

In short, it is begging the question. What we MEAN by a "finite and contingent being" IS that it is caused; it can mean nothing else. Also, it doesn't look at the possibility that no finite or contingent beings exist, and this is what LDS believe.

The rest of the premises and conclusions really come from this initial assumption which is flawed. So the conclusion flows perfectly from the initial premise, because the initial premise is INCLUDED in the conclusion.

I would suggest that everyone look at the original "debunker" of this argument, David Hume. Just google "Hume causality" and you will see that much of the history of philosophy since the 18th century has been based on the idea that this argument was debunked by Hume.

[Mudcat]

While we are looking for first causes, from the Mudcat point of view, what caused God to start the whole thing.

I mean, He sat from infinity in indolence (and darkness?), then suddenly worked very hard for six days (the creation). What cause Him to change from indolence to creator in the first place?

Hey Vance,

Interesting question. I don't think that there is anything that rules out that "life as we know it" was God's singular creation, He could have several series of creative projects throughout infinity. He may have several other things going right now, as well. It is just idle speculation of course. There is obviously no tangible proof of anything other than what we know. So at best all that could be said was that for infinity, God was dormant in the creation of life, the universe and everything as we know it.

Now that is a far cry for saying that in this infinite span God was and indolent lazy bones. The fact of the matter, is we have no idea what He was or wasn't doing.

In regards to a six day creation, well I really don't think that, but I suppose when you are dealing with a posited infinite being, six days or 6 billion years is simply semantic at that point.

As to what caused God to cause us after an infinity of non causality. I think he did it himself.

Regards,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Hey Vance,

Interesting question. I don't think that there is anything that rules out that "life as we know it" was God's singular creation, He could have several series of creative projects throughout infinity. He may have several other things going right now, as well. It is just idle speculation of course. There is obviously no tangible proof of anything other than what we know. So at best all that could be said was that for infinity, God was dormant in the creation of life, the universe and everything as we know it.

Now that is a far cry for saying that in this infinite span God was and indolent lazy bones. The fact of the matter, is we have no idea what He was or wasn't doing.

In regards to a six day creation, well I really don't think that, but I suppose when you are dealing with a posited infinite being, six days or 6 billion years is simply semantic at that point.

As to what caused God to cause us after an infinity of non causality. I think he did it himself.

Regards,

Mudcat

And again, I think that we answer questions that most Christians don't even ask, which ends up getting us in trouble because the others don't understand that. All this about polytheism etc is really an attempt to answer what the others don't ask.

[Mudcat]

Your conclusion seems like a non-sequitur to me. It would be a good idea to read Ostler's reply to Craig and Copan that NoFear provided.

The cosmological argument falls because implicit in that argument is the idea that we must choose a finite starting point in time, which is an actual infinity removed from our current time. But it is not necessary to do any such thing. The past has always been progressing as part of the chain. What's more, one can take the set of the elements of the chain extending infinitely into the past, and call that set the First Cause. IMO, LDS doctrine has a First Cause as good as any other, that First Cause simply isn't equivalent to God.

I think it important to note that, given the assumption that God is absolute First Cause, any free will theodicy attempting to solve the Problem of Evil falls flat. If your beliefs lean to Calvinist ideas, that may not bother you, but if you have Arminian tendencies, I can assure you that your beliefs entail a logical contradiction.

Hey John,

As always, I appreciate your posts.

Emphasis mine, as I perceive it, the First Cause is infinite. So I don't see how the argument would fall flat. Whatever it caused would be finite or eternal by definition. The argument doesn't fail to recognize the infinite.

As to the PoE, I do have a bit of an Armninian slant to me, though I would progress that slant to Molinism. I am curious as to what you believe the logical contradiction is?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

So, Mudcat, I'd say this cosmological argument is debunked. Please be careful to note that I'm not saying all cosmological arguments are debunked. I'm pretty sure there are some nicer ones around that are more difficult to analyze. My suggestion would be to check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a good introductory treatment of cosmological type arguments.

Apologies ba81,

I neglected your post in preference to others that were a bit easier to cipher through. Also, I hate being debunked so early on in the thread. Regular party pooper you are .

However, I grant you, you have debunked the argument as presented and from what I can tell, you are the only one who has done so. If I knew your address I would send you some cookies.

As you alluded to, there are a number of unstated premises. Obviously they operate on assumption. So removing assumptions, I will restate.

1. Based on any evidence we have, all things observable are finite and caused.

2. It is impossible for anything that is finite to cause itself.

3. If infinity exists, then an infinite number of finite causes can not create a solution to how they came to be, because they operate within infinity not in tandem with infinity.

4. Therefore, for anything to be, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist that is infinite.

What do you think?

[changed]

Where did God come from? Where did matter come from? Where did energy come from? Where did life come from? Where did any of it come from?

Laws of thermodynamics - conservation principles, conservation of mass / energy - you don't get something from nothing, nor can you turn something into nothing.... Everything that now is has always and will always be - in one form or another.

The origins debate is pointless. there is no origin.

http://panspermia.org/

http://panspermia.org/thebegin.htm

"Nor is anything gained by running the difficulty farther back.... Our going back, ever so far, brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject." — William Paley

[changed]

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_creator.html

Hebrew Word Studies

Creator

By Jeff A. Benner

Child Root (Branches of the Tree)

Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"

Meaning: To build a nest.

Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.

..."The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews"

I think transform is a better word to use for what is happening around us...

[jadams_4242]

One of the dividing points between LDS and other Christians in how we view things is related to our understanding of how things came to be. Most Christians believe that God was the First Cause of all things.

I for one, support the concept that there was a First Cause to all things and that First Cause was God. LDS seem to believe that God was not the First Cause. From my understanding, LDS believe God was caused/organized, and what caused God was caused/organized .. ad infinitum. I disagree with this.

The premise for the Cosmological argument is simple...

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

I would like you to either debunk this argument or defend an infinite regress of uncaused Gods as a logical alternative....

And how does this tie in with the time in china?

[johndoe]

Hey John,

As always, I appreciate your posts.

Thanks for the kind words. Your participation here is also appreciated, I believe by everyone.

Emphasis mine, as I perceive it, the First Cause is infinite. So I don't see how the argument would fall flat. Whatever it caused would be finite or eternal by definition. The argument doesn't fail to recognize the infinite.

It fails to recognize the infinite in the proposition of an infinite regress. You post a modified version of your argument later on. I'll go into it further there.

As to the PoE, I do have a bit of an Armninian slant to me, though I would progress that slant to Molinism. I am curious as to what you believe the logical contradiction is?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Any appeal to free will to justify the existence of evil must ultimately fail since any decision that any of us make can have its causal chain traced back to its ultimate origin, God as First Cause.

[johndoe]

As you alluded to, there are a number of unstated premises. Obviously they operate on assumption. So removing assumptions, I will restate.

1. Based on any evidence we have, all things observable are finite and caused.

2. It is impossible for anything that is finite to cause itself.

3. If infinity exists, then an infinite number of finite causes can not create a solution to how they came to be, because they operate within infinity not in tandem with infinity.

4. Therefore, for anything to be, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist that is infinite.

What do you think?

It is premise 3 that I question. What exactly is the property of an infinite set consisting of an infinite number of finite elements that logically entails that said set cannot act as first cause? I don't understand what is meant by operating "within infinity not in tandem with infinity".

Many LDS would object to the idea that the elements are indeed finite since LDS doctrine is that all of us are eternal in nature. I don't think that addresses the argument you are presenting here. Eternal nature isn't sufficient for an element to be eternally capable of being a causal agent. And it seems to me that, per LDS doctrine, at some point in the past we had to be acted upon before we were enabled to act. Certainly others could disagree. This concept does address the question of why anything exists at all, setting aside causal chains for the moment. The LDS idea is that everything, including us, is eternal. In this sense, no infinite regression is needed, everything simply is. The First Cause is the eternal brute fact of the universe.

But the argument goes beyond mere existence. Since caused elements do exist, there must be a causal chain (premise 1). The flaw in the argument, specifically premise 3, is the insistence on viewing the elements within the infinite set individually rather than the set as a whole. Another way to express this premise would be to state: No one (finite) element of the set could be causa sui (per premise 2), therefore the entire set is incapable of being causa sui. Again, I believe this is a non-sequitur. Why must this be the case? Sets often have properties that none of the individual elements inside them possess. Sticking with infinity, the set of all real numbers from 1 to 2 is infinite, yet each single number composing the set is finite.

If one views the idea a bit differently, which could well be argued is still within LDS orthodoxy, one could consider God to be the collection of beings that are one with the divine. A sort of expanded social trinitarianism that goes beyond the traditional three beings of the Christian Godhead. In this sense, God is indeed First Cause (in the sense of causing other entities to also become causal agents and the resulting caused phenomena that we can observe), and conforms to LDS doctrine regarding divine nature.

[johndoe]

Lastly, John, I posted a criticism to the cosmological argument posted by Mudcat earlier. I was in a bit of a hurry when I posted it, and nobody has commented on it. Would you mind giving it the once over and let me know where and what my mistakes are, if any. Much appreciated.

I think your criticism is valid. However, I don't think it addresses the strongest form of the argument that Mudcat wants to present. I'm sure you knew that. Stil, it is useful to point out that a stronger version of the argument is needed. I will be interested to read your feedback on Mudcat's revised argument.

[BCSpace]

LDS would certainly agree that God (this God) was the First Cause.

An interesting statement.

On one hand, aren't you kind of begging the question by qualifying it to "this God"? On the other hand, this could demonstrate clearly that we are talking at cross-purposes here (ie: "first causists" vs. "non-first-causists")

It makes one wonder if we are all talking about the same thing on this thread at all.

Well, I think the problem is that few consider the possibility of other universes.

It could be that those advocating a "first cause" position are ONLY talking about "this universe" and "this God" whereas the others of us are talking about a bigger picture.

I'm confident that is the case in most cases.

I have always felt that way in speaking with Catholics- that they were right "as far as they went" but there was a bigger picture to be seen that they were not even looking at.

I felt that the LDS were answering questions the Catholics didn't even ask, and I suspect that is also the case with 90% of Creedal Christians out there.

They still have to answer the question as to what came before as much as we. The problem for them is that they have nothing before God whereas we have "infinite regress". In other words, they must answer the question first whereas we might not have to answer it at all. Looking at it from this perspective one realizes that creedal Christianity is not speaking about infinity at all but is quite finite and limited.

[BCSpace]

Where did God come from? Where did matter come from? Where did energy come from? Where did life come from? Where did any of it come from?

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Nevermind.

Laws of thermodynamics - conservation principles, conservation of mass / energy - you don't get something from nothing, nor can you turn something into nothing.... Everything that now is has always and will always be - in one form or another.

The origins debate is pointless. there is no origin.

Yet scientists are beginning to think about how the properties of each universe are set when they are created in String Theory. Vibrating strings give rise to the possibility that such properties can be changed. For example, what would a universe be like if the gravitational constant were just a little higher or just a little lower thsn ours?

[Mudcat]

In short, it is begging the question. What we MEAN by a "finite and contingent being" IS that it is caused; it can mean nothing else. Also, it doesn't look at the possibility that no finite or contingent beings exist, and this is what LDS believe.

The rest of the premises and conclusions really come from this initial assumption which is flawed. So the conclusion flows perfectly from the initial premise, because the initial premise is INCLUDED in the conclusion.

Hey Bukowski,

I bolded a bit of your post. This is the thing that I have a hard time understanding.

If nothing is finite or contingent. Then do you also believe nothing is caused. This seems the logical conclusion, but I don't know if that is what you think though. If so how can God's will exist if all things are uncaused?

I am curious if you do believe things are caused, then how can something that is infinite be caused and how can it be said it is not contingent?

[Mudcat]

Any appeal to free will to justify the existence of evil must ultimately fail since any decision that any of us make can have its causal chain traced back to its ultimate origin, God as First Cause.

If it is logically impossible to create a world with beings given free moral choice without at least one being committing an evil action. And the presence of free will outweighs the existence of evil. Then is their really a problem of evil.