Q&A: More on the Cosmological Argument
More on the Cosmological Argument
Question
Why does the book present only the option of the infinite-chain argument as an alternative to the reality of God, and not the claim that there was a primordial law that has existed forever? I understood the idea that one can infer from what we observe (that everything has a cause and a beginning) also about what preceded our experience, but the question is whether the probability of a whole world beyond our concepts is greater than the assumption that in the laws of nature that preceded our experience, different rules applied, and there were certain laws (in truth, even one such law would be enough) that had existed forever?
In other words, for the problematic equation that everything has a cause and therefore who created the world, there are two solutions: 1. There is an entire world beyond this equation and beyond our concepts.
2. Our conceptual world is limited only to where our observation reaches, but before that there were laws (familiar and known to us) that existed eternally.
I admit that the second option does not sit well in my mind, but I was interested in how one can rule it out, or how the problem with it can be formulated, and in what way it is worse than the first option?
Answer
It seems to me that I addressed this. A law does not explain anything, because a law merely describes a pattern of conduct. Therefore every law (even a primordial law) requires a lawgiver. When people speak about a first cause, they mean an object, not a law.
Discussion on Answer
An object that has existed forever is God for the purposes of this proof.
But it is not reasonable that it is a material object, because matter does not exist for an infinite amount of time and is not its own cause. In addition, with regard to matter, since it is not its own cause, you have to assume that it existed for an infinite amount of time. With regard to God, you do not need to speak about a concrete infinity, and a potential infinity is enough (He exists at every time you can conceive of, without talking about the concept of infinity).
The Rabbi, in his book on page 195, agrees that one can accept the possibility that the point of matter from which the Big Bang was created had been here forever, and that from it, through the laws of nature, the world and everything in it came into being. And it does not necessarily have to be a personal entity.
If so, I do not understand why this is considered something unreasonable. It is physically possible and fits with the Big Bang theory, according to which it was not created ex nihilo but from primordial “matter.”
In addition, the very assumption that that same initial point of matter is not its own cause and therefore this is a concrete regress is begging the question.
It is not reasonable that matter is its own cause or that it exists for an infinite amount of time. But if so, then that is God for the purposes of this proof. As is well known, every valid logical argument begs the question.
Okay, right. I defined it incorrectly.
Let’s replace the word law with the word “object” or “matter.”
Why is the argument that there is matter that has existed forever more absurd than assuming that there is a world beyond what is familiar and known to us?