Q&A: Does the Cosmological Argument Cancel Out the Physico-Theological Argument?
Does the Cosmological Argument Cancel Out the Physico-Theological Argument?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
For the sake of the discussion, I would like to begin from the assumption that there is no spirituality.
From the cosmological proof, these basic assumptions seem to follow:
1. The world (which consists of dimensions of space and time) was created.
2. The creator of the world is primordial/eternal (since He created time, He is not limited by time).
3. The creator of the world is different from everything He created (everything that is created is created from something different from it, distinct from it).
*Note: At this stage, it is impossible to know whether the creator of the world is simple relative to the world or complex relative to it. We can only know that He is “distinct” from it.
But the problem is that from the physico-theological proof:
Option #1:
1. In the material world familiar to us, simple things become complex through human planning.
2. The capacity for planning is a spiritual capacity that is not limited by matter, and is therefore eternal.
3. The creator of the world has the capacity for planning because it is an eternal capacity like Him.
* Or the creator created the capacity for planning in a timeless reality.
Option #2:
1. In the material world familiar to us, simple things become complex through human planning.
2. The capacity for planning is an indirect result of the creator of the world, just as a clock is an indirect result.
3. The capacity for planning arises from matter through a random process (like evolution), and therefore does not require the existence of anything spiritual.
4. The creator of the world does not have the capacity for planning; rather, He is the cause of this capacity’s existence. That is, the creation of the world is like a kind of attribute of His soul.
So if we assume that there is no spirituality, option #1 falls away and only option #2 remains. Meaning that the Creator has no desire whatsoever regarding human actions. We may have proven that perhaps there is a God, but He is certainly not theistic—perhaps deistic.
Answer
I didn’t follow the argument, since I generally do not address arguments that are based on incorrect assumptions. You are assuming for the sake of the discussion that there is no spirituality, and by doing so you make the discussion pointless.
Discussion on Answer
That is, there are really two questions here.
1. From the cosmological argument it is proven that God is not within our experience. So how can we speak about Him in terms that are from our experience, like planning (a concept from our experience), and so on and so on.
2. From the cosmological argument we see that God created the world and all its concepts—that is, the concept of planning is a created concept. So it cannot be projected back onto the Creator. Because if the Creator had this concept, then the concept would not be created. (One has to remember that there are no ideal forms of concepts, or that a concept is something spiritual not dependent on time.)
And from a synthesis of these two questions it follows that God cannot even create a world (to the extent that one can speak about Him), because no concept applies to Him. And therefore the world is certainly a necessary consequence of Him.
Planning has nothing to do with our experience and was not created anywhere. A concept describes an idea, not a reality, and therefore concepts are not connected to experience. At most, we become acquainted with them through experience. By contrast, principles of thought are a result of experience (or an a priori assumption). Therefore there is no obstacle to speaking of God as a planner, but there is an obstacle to assuming that He needs a cause for His existence.
We are already getting into sophistry, and I do not see any point in continuing.
I’d be happy if the Rabbi would stay nuanced as usual…
A. God certainly also invented logic, didn’t He?
B. The Rabbi wrote here that principles of thought, like the physico-theological argument, the cosmological argument, etc., are learned from experience. If so, how can they be projected onto things that are not within our experience?
C. Where was the concept “existed” so that we can use it?
A. No. Logic is not a being, and therefore there is no one who invented it. I have already pointed out here more than once that logic obligates even Him. See, for example, here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94/
And here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%99/
B. First, they are not necessarily learned from experience; they can be learned from experience. Once we have learned them, they can be projected wherever that seems relevant.
C. As I wrote, the concept did not exist then and does not exist now either (it is an idea, not a reality).
Pardon me, but I’m done.
Maybe the Rabbi could explain the distinction between an idea that does not require creation and reality.
Why does a concept not require creation and can describe a primordial entity, etc.?
Even though this isn’t the Rabbi’s favorite part…
Thank you very much in advance! This is important to me.
“Creation” is also an idea…
So if ideas require creation, how was the idea of creation itself created?
What isn’t clear? A concept is not a being, and whatever is not a being was not created. The idea of a democratic state was not created. The democratic state was created at some stage, and it realized that idea—which, as an idea, could be entirely primordial (except that once nobody knew it or thought it).
Likewise, the concept of planning was not created. At some point there was a first being who planned (that is, who realized this concept for the first time). And similarly, the idea of causality was not created, but perhaps the principle of causality (which is the realization of the concept in reality) or specific causal relations were created (a specific causal relation between cause X and effect Y).
Yisrael, take an approving icon. 🙂
Okay, thanks.
By the way, Yisrael, the concept of creation came into being with the first human thought about the concept of creation.
In any case,
even if we do have the ability to describe God in our toolbox,
how can one add further attributes to an entity that is not within our experience, namely the God of the cosmological argument? Like planning, etc.
After all, in the end we reached the conclusion that He is not within our experience.
How can one add further attributes to an entity that is not within our experience, namely the God of the cosmological argument? Like planning, etc.
After all, in the end we reached the conclusion that He is not within our experience.
I am not adding attributes to Him; rather, I am saying that He was the planner (that is how I reached the conclusion of His existence—that there must be a planner). That’s it. I won’t answer here any further (God willing).
The argument is valid as long as you do not assume that there is a world of ideas/concepts—which is a fairly reasonable assumption.
After all, from the cosmological argument we assume that God is an entity not within our experience,
and yet God created the concept of “planning,” so how can one say about Him that He plans?… And likewise He created the concept of morality, so how can one say about Him that He “grounds morality”? And so on and so on.
After all, one has to remember that God is not something within our experience, which means that He is not built out of the concept of planning, which is within our experience, nor out of the concept of grounding morality, which is within our experience, and so on and so on.
From here it is proven that the creation of the world, from God’s perspective, must be the result of lack of intention—as the philosophers argue in the Kuzari. Like a kind of necessary consequence.