I’d like to thank Osareya for his recent contribution of Quentin Smith’s critique of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of ‘god’ as argued by William Lane Craig in his book Reasonable Faith. I especially appreciate his time and effort for making this available to us all. I for one may never have had the pleasure to read it. Thanks again, Osareya.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.'"

Again, I must point out the absurdity of the claim that existence has a ‘beginning’. I submitted a similar post earlier in the season, however I submit it again, in original wording with this post, for the benefit of new participants who missed it.

First of all, one must bear in mind the following principle: Existence exists. This is an absolute. The fact that existence exists is not open to change. Any ‘thing’ that exists, naturally presupposes that existence exists. Grasping this axiom is the first step in understanding OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY.

The ‘origin’ of existence is not non-existence, not is it a form of consciousness. When we discuss matters of nature, reality and the universe, we invariantly discuss matters of existence. The universe is the sum of all existence. In other words, if something is said to exist, it is part of the universe. There is no such ‘thing’ as ‘existence outside the universe’. There is no such ‘place’ as ‘outside the universe’. Differing opinions will be asked to provide their arguments to the contrary, beginning with their notion of existence and their understanding of what constitutes universe.

* * *

Before one can identify the ‘origin’ of the universe (i.e., of existence), whether ‘spiritual’ or otherwise, one would first face the task of arguing that existence indeed has an origin or beginning. Then and only then can one proceed to identify the ‘nature’ or that origin. But here one should begin to recognize the absurdity of an attempt to argue for the ‘origin’ of existence. The notion of an ‘origin of existence’ presupposes existence already; if something is said to be the source of existence, that ‘something’ is necessarily being said to exist already, and thus contradicts itself outright. As it was mentioned earlier: Something cannot create itself. Similarly, ‘nothing’ cannot create ‘something’.

However, some individuals still insist on claiming that the universe had a beginning.

Rationally speaking, such a claim is ludicrous. In order to ‘prove’ that something is responsible for the beginning of existence, one could only appeal to existence, and thus his argument is circular and paradoxical, and ultimately self-contradictory. It would be an argument that attempts to step outside existence to conjecture a ‘cause’ for existence, while attempting at the same time to say that this ‘cause’ does not exist. In other words, existence is said to come from non-existence. The absurdities are only just beginning at this point.

All rational argumentation presupposes existence; one cannot argue a certainty by an appeal to non-existence. Only after one can demonstrate that existence has an origin in ‘something else’ can one proceed to ‘identify’ what constitutes that ‘something else’. However, again, one faces the same problem: identity presupposes existence. A is A. A thing (that exists) is itself (possesses identity). This is the first law of nature, the Law of Identity. It is universal, it is absolute.

The religionist, however, thinks he can skirt around this reality by positing a form of consciousness as the source of existence. This is known in philosophy as subjectivism. The form of consciousness that the religionist posits is often summarized by the term ‘god’. Does ‘god’ exist? Yes, says the religionist. Just by this admission alone the religionist contradicts himself, for he posits something that he says exists as the source of all existence, thus presupposing existence. Additionally, consciousness, which is the faculty of awareness, presupposes existence already by its nature: Something can only be said to be conscious if it has something to be conscious of, thus presupposing and dependent on existence.

The religionist posits a form of consciousness (‘god’), which necessarily presupposes existence, to ‘create’ existence. This explains nothing. On the contrary to answering questions, it leaves existing questions unanswered, and only generates new, unnecessary questions (such as ‘What is a ‘god’? and ‘What created ‘god’? etc.).

The religionist takes the subjective view that the source of existence is a form of consciousness. This naturally precludes the religionist from achieving objectivity in any philosophical doctrines consequent to his subjectivist position in metaphysics (hence mysticism in epistemology, altruism in morality, and collectivism in politics). This is the primary reason why religion fails man as a philosophy: it attempts to build a philosophy on the foundation of a subjective view of reality, the view that existence, the universe and reality find their source in a form of consciousness. However, we already know that EXISTENCE EXISTS. The fact of existence is indisputable. Even an argument against existence would have to presuppose existence.

The assertion that existence is ‘created’ would require a ‘creator’. However, assertion of a ‘creator’ necessarily presupposes existence. Again, the religionist is caught in the same snares of his absurdity. One cannot say tat there is a ‘creator’ which exists which ‘created existence’. However, this is the crux of the religionist’s Cosmological Argument for the Existence of ‘god’, and the basis of associated mythology, such as the Genesis account of the ‘creation of the earth’. From ‘what’ did this ‘creator’ ‘create’ the earth? Blank out.

For these reasons I dispute absolutely the first two premises of Craig’s cosmological argument. (Again, even if these premises were true, one would have to explain the ‘cause’ of the ‘cause’ of the universe, and so on. Arguing that such an infinite regress ‘eventually ends with god’ fails to recognize the nature of the concept ‘infinity’: an infinite regress by definition has NO END. Therefore, positing ‘god’ neither has intellectual merit nor does it explain anything.

Those who assert the Cosmological Argument must argue as its premise that all things that exist have a beginning, or cause. However, the religionist posits ‘god’ - an exception to this premise (thus contradicting it) as the explanation (i.e., the conclusion, which invariably states: ‘god’ exists.)

Although I posted L. Peikoff’s statement on this in a recent e-mail to the participants of this group, I include it again below for it fits completely within the scope of this subject and bears repeating:

--- Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pg. 21.

Remember that the universe is defined as the sum of all existence; if something exists, it is already part of the universe by definition, by virtue of the fact that it exists.

* * *

As for the Wave Function of the Universe theory, to which Osareya’s post includes allusions, this is new to me upon this reading, and I would require more knowledge of its particulars in order to understand it better and formulate an assessment of its veracity. However, I will say that Stephen Hawking is in my opinion a far more credible source of information in this regard than the men who wrote and edited Genesis and the other books of the Bible.

* * *

Keep in mind also a larger point, however, that I believe both theists and atheists lose sight of while arguing for or against the evidence of the existence of a ‘god’. That point is: evidence for a ‘god’ would automatically nullify faith, which is the alleged means of knowledge integral to religion, particularly and specifically Christianity. If there’s evidence for a ‘god’, then there is no need for faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines Christian faith as: "...the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen" (it’s poetic I’ll admit, but hardly adequate for the requirements of objectivity). If one could produce substantial evidence for his ‘god’, then obviously such wishful thinking as faith requires would not be applicable, let alone necessary. Hence, I rather find it ludicrous that the modern religionist attempts to argue that there is evidence for the existence of his ‘god’, as such evidence would destroy his religious doctrines. However, the modern religionist’s panic to appeal to reason only persists because reason is one of the foundations of our society. That does bring to mind another subject, the subject of America, which recent posts have attempted to address. It’s time for some principles to be illustrated. I will save that task for a post in the near future. Selah.

* * *

Again, I thank Osareya for his contributions to the debates. He has worked tirelessly in the defense of his principles, and it is his tenacity that I find so admirable. I think all participants can agree on this.

May you each get what you deserve,

Tindrbox

_________________________________