Why is there anything at all? (Introduction)

by Curtis , Saturday, June 28, 2008, 20:24 (5775 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw, thanks for responding. - I see what happened to the link in the prior post: the ')' was included as part the http request which the web site could not handle. My apology. - Try this - http://www.sincereanswer.com/eternity/files/doc/Cosmological.ppt - You did say "Whatever preceded and caused it [the Big Bang] must surely remain unknown to us ... we have no means of going back before it." Here is where the presentation would have helped. You will see in the presentation that there are three premises, and each premise has several supporting, independent points. There are two categories for the supporting points: scientific or logic (i.e. philosophical). The first premise of the argument is attested to very strongly by scientific thought. Logic is the defender of the other two premises. I say this because we must include logic as a way of knowing, as well as scientific activities. So, we can know or understand what happened before the Big Bang by using logic; we can know what preceded it with a high degree of certainty. - I want, at this point, to lay out what the Kalam provides at the end, in the hope that you will see how the argument moves forward. The end of the Kalam provides a causal agent that is: - 1.1) Personal because the creating force has the ability to choose, which is to say a 'will' of its own. Only a personality can choose. - 1.2) Eternal because it has no beginning, it is beginning less. That is the definition of eternal. - 1.3) All powerful and knowing since It created everything. There is nothing known about the Universe that it does not know since it is the source of the rather fine-tuned explosion. - 1.4) A spirit. It is obviously not material since it created matter. It may choose to enter into a material state but that would not be all it is. - 1.5) Supremely intelligent because of the fine tuning of the cosmos and genetic code for life. - 1.6) Immutable since it is not matter. - I don't mean to be arrogant by saying that asking 'any question about how it [personal cause] got there is "illogical".' I think an actual infinite regress of first causes is a logical impossibility (see slide 52) so such a question would be illogical. Let me try to elaborate a little. - Let's say there are two types of beings: contingent things which depend on other things for their existence and necessary things that don't depend on other things. The First Cause would be a necessary thing that would always exist. The Universe is a contingent thing. Asking what caused a necessary thing is like asking "Why are all bachelors unmarried?" or "Why are all orange things uncolored?". - Now, you are correct that an eternal First Cause is what the Kalam is trying to show. So, please ask any questions you may have about the Kalam. - You said "Just saying that there is a prime cause which is God as you describe him doesn't constitute evidence." I agree. My intention was to refer to the presentation which you weren't able to download. Sigh. I would like to refresh this discussion. - Now, what the Kalam doesn't give us is the God of Christianity. That requires the next leg of evidence but first we have to finish this leg.
So, back to the beginning ...