From a discussion on Hirhurim:
Anon writes:
Sure, but I fail to see how one can make any assumptions at all about God (or the ‘First Cause’) unless they are based on faith, since there is no actual data other than faith based traditions. When someone says ‘My assumption is that God is X’ what they are really saying is ‘My preference is for God to be X’. In fact, in some recent online discussions about Hashgachah Pratis and similar God related topics both here and elsewhere, I have noticed many commenters saying this kind of thing explicitly (though perhaps subconsciously). Phrases such as ‘I can’t believe God likes X’, or ‘I’m much more comfortable with a God who does Y’, and other statements to similar effect.
Plus of course, whatever assumptions you find to be reasonable on a topic where no actual data exists will depend to a very large part on the religious beliefs you have. This explains why Swinburne thinks it’s entirely reasonable to assume God has a Son, whereas Harry Maryles writes that the very idea is completely absurd.
This is why it’s generally better to base beliefs on evidence and data, rather than conjecture. And when no evidence or data exists (or could exist), it is probably better to hold off on any opinions. Or at least admit they are entirely faith based. This whole line of argument, viz ‘My assumption is that God is X, therefore God exists (or whatever)’, is mostly a religious language game whereby you rephrase your faith beliefs into a seemingly rational line of thought.
Yes, reasonable people can come to different conclusions. But where there is zero data, I’m not sure how any of these ‘reasonable’ people can think there is any validity to the entire discussion in the first place.
I guess ultimately it’s about who can create the most compelling God model which people will find fulfilling, comforting, and whatever else they are looking for from a God (which will differ between different cultures and personalities). And considering world history since the axial age, seems like we Jews have actually done a pretty good job at this. So I guess, keep up the good work!
STORY TIME POSTS: Once upon a time there were two children playing outside when their mother asked them to come inside. The first one said, "Does mum exist?" Which led them to a long and thorough philosophical discussion which only eneded when their mother came outside and gave them both such a spanking that they couldn’t sit down for a week.
LUKE SAYS: I got a few spankings as a child where I was promised I would not be able to sit down for a week. I would also told the spankings would go on far longer if I started crying. And look at how I turned out!
TC WRITES:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument may be divided into two stages. The first has two main premises and a conclusion:
(Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(Premise 2) The universe began to exist.
(Conclusion) The universe has a cause.
The argument is valid, so if these premises are true, the conclusion has to be true; it’s impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion to be false.
So the big question is: How plausible are the premises?
Premise (1) is usually supported by sheer intuition – how could something come from nothing uncaused? – or by the empirical evidence of things beginning to exist always having causes.
Premise (2) is usually supported with the empirical evidence for the Big Bang, or from abstract speculation that supposedly reveal absurdities about actual infinites, including the universes having an infinite past.
Even if successful, the argument has not yet shown that God exists. The second stage of the argument tries to show that God exists from the universe having the cause:
(3) If the universe has a cause, then God exists.
(4) The universe has a cause.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
Once again, this is valid, and (4) has been shown in the first stage. So the big question now is whether (3) is plausible.
In support of (3) we may suggest that the cause of the universe, all space and time, must be spaceless and timeless, and must have significant enough power and intelligence to bring about a universe like ours.
I think that the Kalam cosmological argument is not the strongest version of the argument, but I hope that this elaboration helps.
