Tonys Superform Cosmological Argument: Hey guys :) I threw this together while working on other things. Any corrections or criticisms are quite welcome. I must first apologize. I have several logical necessities in a chain in my head and I often misspeak when talking about the Cosmological argument. Let me take my time here and clarify what I mean so I can demonstrate my Superform Cosmological argument so I can show the basis of my conclusions for an uncaused, spaceless, timeless, intentional creator that must have and must still exist. To do this, I have to go through a few arguments: the a priori assumption of a person’s own consciousness, the a priori assumption of the reality of the external world, the a priori assumption of Rationality, the (actual) Cosmological argument, the impossibility of actual infinites, the nature of contingent objects and uncaused logical necessities, and the binary nature of nonmaterial objects. I’ll separate all of these so that, if you are already familiar and in agreement with one of the arguments/a priori assumptions, you can skip ahead to what interests you. At the beginning of each section, there will sometimes be a “[Px, Py, etc.]” that denotes where I’ve derived my premises from for the Superform argument. I’ll conclude with a summation of my Superform Cosmological argument for a logically necessary (uncaused) spaceless, timeless, intentional (has a mind) creator that must have and must still exist. Three Important a priori Assumptions: One’s Own Consciousness, The Reality of the External World, and Rationality. These three a priori assumptions seem self-evident to each of us, but really no other argument can be made for them. However, each of these three assumptions is necessary to forming any kind of a logical statement. One’s Own Consciousness: When I think about the world, there is no way I can explain this process, without attributing belief in the objective reality of my own consciousness. Descartes unsatisfying tried to make an argument for one’s own consciousness in this way: P1. If I think, I must exist. P2. I think. C1. I exist. Although this “Cogito Argument” follows the valid modus ponens argument structure, a careful eye will spy the conclusion hiding in P2. Stating that “I” does anything entails it exists. Therefore, if I said “I am blue,” that would still entail I exist. If we don’t already assume “I” exists, we can’t claim “I” thinks. This might not be *strictly* begging the question, but it makes P1 completely irrelevant to the argument. But even though Descarte failed, the conclusion is self-evident and cannot, even in itself, be argued against. If “I” argue, that entails “I” exist. Any argument that “I” try to make that “I” don’t exist is necessarily self-refuting. Even if “I” didn’t exist, “I” couldn’t perceive it anyway. So we see here clearly that, although no logical argument can be made for your own consciousness, it seems obviously self-evident and is logically irrefutable. This says nothing about *other minds* though. So as yet, we haven’t provided any grounding for any other mind or that minds can affect matter. The Reality of the External World: [P2, P4] When I think about my own consciousness, it seems self-evident that I perceive things that aren’t ‘I’. No rational argument can be made for this, however. ‘I’ could exist in a completely self-contained dream state where things I appear to perceive are actually merely components of the ‘I’. But if nothing exists except this universal ‘I’, then it follows that I can take no meaningful action since there is nothing I can act upon. If I can’t act, no perception or argument could have any value. Thus, any argument that there is no external reality is also self-defeating. Rationality: When I order my thoughts, I am following the rules of logic. “Rules” imply meaningful order. That there is an understandably meaningful order to existence is the assumption of ‘Rationality’. Since I must assume rationality to make an argument, I can’t argue for it or against it. Still, it seems self-evident to me that rationality does exist. So, all rational arguments will always make these three a priori assumptions. Thus, they can’t be directly argued for or against. Furthermore, if a physical reality is a meaningful part of that external reality, we know we have a priori evidence for a mind that has the potential of affecting the material world (matter/energy). The actual Cosmological argument goes like this: P1. Things that begin to exist have a cause. P2. The universe began to exist. C1. The Universe had a cause. This is a simple modus ponens argument structure. If the premises are both true, it necessarily follows that the conclusion is true. P1 isn’t really academically contentious. Frauds like Laurence Krauss mislead a lot of people by making claims like “Something can come from nothing.” when what he’s actually defending is that something can come from the quantum vacuum (a kind of something). For anyone familiar with the law of causation, however, it’s an elementary point. P2 Has been highly contentious among non-philosophers. In fact, for many years, the scientific community of cosmologists tended to assume the universe was eternal (steady-state, cyclical, etc.). If you’re familiar with the current literature such as the BGV theorem, you’ll understand why there is an almost universal consensus that the known universe, or even a multiverse of “foamy universes”, began a finite time ago. This empirical and scientific grounding for P2 is actually the weaker of its two supports. The philosophical argument against the existence of actual infinites (discussed below) precludes there being an eternal universe in any sense and thus entails P2. We still find this scientific grounding useful in the public forum, though. The Impossibility of Actual Infinites [P7] Infinity is a mathematical value that can be defined as an amount that is beyond measure. It’s a very useful concept in math and can seem applicable to reality until we try to do anything with it. It’s seems quite imaginable that the universe could be eternal in the past or expand out spatially forever. When I look out to the stars, I can only see so far. Still, I don’t assume that space ends where my naked eye fails. Since the boundary is far beyond the measure of my naked eye, it seems like it could hypothetically go on forever; it appears there might not be a boundary. However useful ‘infinity’ is in mathematics, it causes all kinds of absurdities when applied to reality. If something is logically self-contradictory in reality, we know it cannot exist. Let’s imagine, for example, that the universe was spatially infinite. Its area would be equal to ∞. If we cut a sphere out in the shape of the inner half of that universe, we would have ∞ inside the cut and ∞ outside the cut. So we see here: ∞ - ∞ = ∞. But what if instead of cutting out the inner half, we just cut out an inner sphere the size of an orange? In that case, we’d have ∞ - ∞ = the size of an orange (a finite size *O*). But if we have two conflicting answers for the same equation, we have a logical contradiction. Thus, we know an actual infinite cannot exist in reality. Actual infinites include eternal pasts, infinite spaces, and infinite regresses of causes. Since an eternal past would be just such an actual infinite, we know the universe *must* have had a cause a finite time ago. The Nature of Logically Contingent and Logically Necessary Objects: [P1, P3, P5, P6, P8, P11] There are really three distinct levels of probability: 0, 1, and 0 > X > 1. Possibilities that have a probability of zero really aren’t possibilities at all. These things are logically impossible. There is no set of circumstances where they could be true or become true. We *know* a square cannot be a circle because all sets containing squares cannot contain any circles. Possibilities that have a probability of 1 are more than possibilities, they are certainties. They are logically necessary. There is no set of circumstances where they could not be true. We *know* any square is a square because all sets containing squares must contain squares. Possibilities of 0 > X > 1 are what people traditionally mean when they talk about possibilities. These things could be true given the right circumstances. Their actuality is contingent on such circumstances. “Switch229” could exist (he’s not logically impossible) but it’s true he might not exist (he’s not logically necessary). This means, that if Switch229 exists, he must have had a cause. Since we’ve seen that we can’t have material objects that existed for an actually infinite past, we know that all logically possible material objects *must* be logically contingent. The Binary Nature of All Nonmaterial Objects [P9, P10] All nonmaterial objects are necessarily non-physical. If a nonmaterial object cannot cause anything, it is abstract. The set of abstract objects contain things like the number seven and logical necessities like the number seven being equal to the square root of forty-nine. Since abstract objects are logically necessitous, they are changeless. Such things just *are* and they cannot cease to *be*. There is no possible world where they do not exist. If something always was and it had an effect that was logically necessitous, that effect would also have always been. So, if there is a nonmaterial object that can “cause” a thing to happen that wasn’t always true, it follows that the effect was not logically necessary. If we have any evidence of a nonmaterial object that has the potential to cause something that is merely logically contingent, we know that thing acted not causally do a necessity, but arbitrarily. For something to act arbitrarily, it must choose to act. For a thing to make a choice, it must have intentionality. Intentionality entails a mind. And each of us *do* have evidence of a nonmaterial object that has the potential to create contingent effects, namely, a priori evidence for our own mind and its potential to affect external reality. So, therefore it necessarily follows that there are two kinds of nonmaterial things: Abstract Objects and Minds. My Superform Cosmological Argument: P1. If the external universe exists, it is either logically necessary or logically contingent. P2. The external universe exists. C1. The external universe is either logically necessary or logically contingent. C1. The external universe is either logically necessary or logically contingent. P3. If the external universe is physical, it cannot be logically necessary. P4. The external universe is physical. C2. The external universe is logically contingent. P5. Existing logically contingent objects cannot be eternal in the past and must have a cause to exist. P2. The external universe exists. P4. The external universe is physical. C2. The external universe is logically contingent. C3. The external universe began to exist and cannot be eternal in the past. C4. The external universe has a cause. P6. If the external universe has a cause, that cause is either created through an infinite regress or has some origin in a first cause that is logically necessary. C4. The external universe has a cause. P7. Infinite regresses are logically impossible. C5. The external universe has some origin in a first cause that is logically necessary. P8. Only nonmaterial objects are logically necessary. C5. The first cause is logically necessary. C6. The external universe has its origin in some nonmaterial first cause. P9. All nonmaterial objects are either abstract objects or minds. P10. Abstract objects can’t cause logically contingent effects. C6. The external universe has its origin in some nonmaterial first cause. C7. This first cause was an intentional mind. P11. Logically necessary objects are eternal. C5. The first cause was logically necessary. C8. The first cause was eternal. C5. The first cause was logically necessary. C6. The first cause was nonmaterial. C7. The first cause was an intentional mind. Thus: C9. The first cause was a logically necessary nonmaterial mind. This is the Superform Cosmological argument that argues for a spaceless, timeless, intentional creator that must have and must still exist.
Posted on: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 02:55:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015