I have encountered this argument a few times with theists arguing the William Lane Craig's theory of causation and I will admit, I usually don't tackle the debate as it is very complex and a much demanding argument. But it seems more and more theists are bringing this up as the undoubtedly proof of gods existence- so I gave it my best shot-I may have "failed"? but I also learned a lot from it.This is an email that was sent to me,and our rebuttals:

------------------------------

Ubanrust,

Let me know what you think about premises 1 and 2. 1 is a common principle of reason, so 2 is defended with two arguments. If you reject 1 or 2 please give me a deductive argument for why.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.
------------------------------
MY REBUTAL:

Very good question.
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence"-What reason is there to believe this principle is true? It's not self-evident, something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. I think that there is absolutely no evidence that it is true. All of the observations we have are of changes in things - of something changing from one state to another. Things move, come to a rest, get larger, get smaller, combine with other things, divide in half, and so on. But we have no observation of things coming into existence. For example, we have no observations of people coming into existence. You merely have a change of things. An egg cell and a sperm cell change their state by combining. The combination divides, enlarges, and eventually evolves into an adult human being. Therefore, I think that we have no evidence at all of this "cause" however, "whatever begins to exist has a `cause', is true. All of the causes we are aware of are changes in pre-existing materials. It seems like this premises means creating material from nothingness. It is pure speculation that such a strange sort of causation is even possible, let alone even supported in our observations in our daily lives.

I may tackle the other premises in the future
------------------------------
HIS REBUTAL:

"Hmm. Very good question.
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence"-What reason is there to believe this principle is true? It's not self-evident, something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it."

Firstly, it is strange enough that you doubt the first premise at all, but even stranger that later on in your letter you say that it is true. You say, "however, "whatever begins to exist has a `cause', is true". I find that very confusing. It is self-evident. It seems so to me. If someone else says it is not so for them I must conclude that they have either not understood it or else they are not being rational. Your real problem has nothing to do with the principle of sufficient reasoning. You do not believe anything exists. I will show you. You say, "For example, we have no observations of people coming into existence." It is clear to me that you either do not understand what it means for something to come into existence or you do not understand what it means for something to have an identity, or you think you are identical with the universe. Maybe you are a pantheist. You do not differentiate the matter which composes the human body from this same matter which was spread out throughout the universe before it came to compose the human body. Furthermore, you do not differentiate people from human bodies. So you say that people do not come into existence. Ok, then since you believe that the universe is billions of years old, you either believe people are billions of years old or people do not exist. When someone asks how old you are, what do you say? Why not tell them you are billions of years old, or tell them that you are them and the universe? Are you really being honest here? When someone on the street asks you how old you are, you respond by saying some number of years between 0 and 100 years old. However, when a person gives you a proof for God's existence, you either do not exist or you are billions of years old and identical to everything else in the universe. I need to get some feedback from you. It is rare that I have to ask these questions, but they are necessary given your response:

Does the universe exist?

How old is the universe?

Do you exist?

Are you the universe?

How old are you?

Are you the same person as I am?

Are you the same person from moment to moment?

------------------------------
MY REBUTAL:

'm not trying to be irrational, but I think the premise #1 has a yes and a no factor in it. I do not believe that whatever begins to exist has a cause- of its existence- simply because of lack of evidential validity in this notion. However, I do believe that whatever begins to exist has a cause, as science is aware of them, and that is by pre-existing materials as I stated before. That is what science has validity and evidence of. But to say whatever exists has a cause of existence is purely speculation as we don't have actual observations of things coming into existence so I would have to disagree with you that it is self evident. So, I would have to say that premise #1 is half valid, as defined by science.
------------------------------
HIS REBUTAL:

Urbanrust,


"I'm not trying to be irrational, but I think the premise #1 has a yes and a no factor in it."

This makes no sense. There is no way to respond to this.


"I do not believe that whatever begins to exist has a cause- of its existence- simply because of lack of evidential validity in this notion."

This also makes no sense. There are first of all many examples of things which begin to exist and every one of them has a cause. You began to exist and the cause is your parents. Furthermore, there is no such thing as evidential validity. That means nothing.


"However, I do believe that whatever begins to exist has a cause, as science is aware of them, and that is by pre-existing materials as I stated before."

No one holds this view. It makes no sense. You either have to say you are equal to the universe and billions of years old or say nothing exists. It is not a good way and that is why you are alone in this one.


" That is what science has validity and evidence of. But to say whatever exists has a cause of existence is purly speculation as we don't have actual observations of things coming into existence so I would have to disagree with you that it is self evident."

We have trillions of examples of things coming into existence. This computer came into existence. I came into existence. Every human came into existence. We have birth dates which show this.


"So, I would have to say that premise #1 is half valid, as defined by science."

I showed you scientific evidence which says that the big bang model is now more than the consensus view. I showed you how your other two examples failed, and I gave you three arguments. You did not give me a single argument. The cosmological argument still stands. Since you did not reject a premise, can we now agree that God exists?
------------------------------
MY REBUTAL:

We have trillions of examples of things coming into existence, I agree if we define these examples as having a cause of existing from pre-made materials. This computer came into existence-of pre-materials. I came into existence-of pre-materials. Every human came into existence-of pre-materials. We have birth dates which show this-because we were made, from our parents of pre-existing materials. Anything else is still pure speculation to me as I think its not observable-yet, as to where these "pre-existing" materials even come from. The "primordial soup" that evolutionists say started life isn't even defined yet and obviously not observable. They really have no idea what was in that first "mold" if you will, its speculative at best and they will probably never know. I am an atheist but I don't hold onto alot of the theory's of evolutionist claims as there is no evidence for some of them and still just in theory phase to me, but that is how science works- its contently changing as science is constantly re-defining its self based on new evidence that arise.
------------------------------
HIS REBUTAL:

Urbanrust,


"We have trillions of examples of things coming into existence, I agree if we define these examples as having a cause of existing from pre-made materials."

How many examples do we have of things popping into existence from nothing? We have no examples. What would you say if a person said they came into existence from non-matter? What if they said they had no parents and they claimed to have materialized five minutes ago? What would you think if a ball was sitting on the ground and lifted up four feet and then fell back to the ground? Would you think that had a cause? Of course we would.


"The "primordial soup" that evolutionists say started life isn't even defined yet and obviously not observable. They really have no idea what was in that first "mold" if you will, its speculative at best and they will probably never know."

This has nothing to do with the argument I am showing. My argument is completely consistent with evolution. Furthermore, how life arose from non-life is a separate issue from evolution. Let's just stick with the cosmological argument for now. We can get into other debates later.

"I am an atheist but I don't hold onto alot of the theory's of evolutionist claims as there is no evidence for some of them and still just in theory phase to me, but that is how science works- its contently changing as science is constantly re-defining its self based on new evidence that arise."

Just think about this. The universe started up 16 billion years ago. It came from a singularity. Let's ask what the cause of the universe had to be like. Let's consider the properties such a cause would have to have. William Lane Craig says this:

"As the cause of space and time this cause must transcend time. And therefore exist non-temporally and non-spatially, at least without the universe. This cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial; for something can only be timeless if it is unchanging, and something can only be unchanging if it is immaterial. It must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy space and time. It must be personal. The only entities which can be timeless and immaterial are either minds or abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects don't stand in causal relations. Therefore the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be an unembodied mind. Only an agent can account for the temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause were an impersonal mechanically operating cause then whenever the cause exists the effect must also. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given then effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless, but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any antecedent conditions."
------------------------------

As you can see its a circular argument now. Maybe I just don't know how defend myself with such a claim? I don't know. What do you guys think? And how would one tackle this theist explanation as proof of god? Thanks-Jay