In his debate with Christian apologist Phil Fernandes, atheist apologist and philosopher Michael Martin replied to the Fernandes' Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence like this:
According to Dr. Fernandes the Kalam cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of God. This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God. I am willing to grant (1) although I believe that this premise is much more controversial than Dr. Fernandes supposes.[5] The other two premises I do not grant. First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible.[6] In particular, Dr. Fernandes misunderstands modern science very badly in supposing that embracing such a view would "destroy the pillars of modern science." It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause. Second, the cause of the universe need not be God. It could be a malevolent being or an impersonal force or a plurality of gods or a finite God. Of course, Dr. Fernandes uses other considerations to support his theistic interpretation of the cause of the Big Bang. But these considerations are not well argued for. For example, he maintains that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence; hence human intelligence cannot come from a mindless universe. However, no good reason is given for this claim and, in any case, a nonmindless universe is compatible with other hypotheses beside theism, for example, polytheism. Third, it is unclear how God could have caused the Big Bang since time is supposed to have been created in the Big Bang. God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect. In particular, causation in terms of intentions and desires are temporally prior to their effects. God's desires and intentions therefore cannot be the cause of the Big Bang. (emphasis in blue added)
Let's to examine Martin's contentions in more detail:
1-First, he misrepresents and misconstructs the kalam cosmological argument, when he formulates it like this: "This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God"
This is simply false. The kalam cosmological argument is actually constructed like this:
1)Whatever begins to exist have (or must have) a cause
2)The universe began to exist
3)Therefore, the universe had a cause
You can see a video explaining the actual formulation of this argument here:
In fact, Fernandes in his opening statement (to which Martin replied), explicitly formulate it in that way: "This argument is called the kalaam cosmological argument for God's existence. Saint Bonaventure utilized this argument.[1] William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland are two modern proponents of it.[2] This argument is as follows: 1) whatever began to exist must have a cause, 2) the universe began to exist, 3) therefore, the universe had a cause."(Emphasis in blue added)
So, note that Martin's misrepresentation of the kalam argument is intentional. It's known as a straw man fallacy and it's unworthy of serious philosophers (Personally, when I read "thinkers" defending intentionally fallacies like that, I loss any intellectual respect for them). Serious philosophers try to examine opposing arguments in their best formulation (i.e. in their strongest version) in order to assess the actual force (or weakness) of the argument. (Instead, propagandists and ideologues tend to use the straw man fallacies, because their purpose is not to find the truth and follow the argument where it leads, but to defend their cherished beliefs and ideology from falsification)
2-On the other hand, Martin's intentional misconstruction of the kalam argument is not an argument of all (all of the propositions used in Martin's straw man have not the form of a logically valid argument). Compare Martin's straw man with the actual formulation of the kalam argument (which is a formally valid argument).
When you see a person arguing like that, you have a powerful reason to doubt that person's intellectual competence. Given that Martin is a trained philosopher, it's unlikely that he cannot understand the arguments he's criticizing. So we can only conclude that his misinterpretation of the kalam argument is intentional (which suggest some kind of intellectual dishonesty).
3-Note Martin's intentional omission of the crucial metaphysical premise of the kalam argument: the premise that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". That premise is crucial, because it's what warrant the belief that the universe, if it began to exist, must have a cause. (So, the belief that the universe was caused is not arbitrary; rather, it's a consequence of a highly plausible metaphysical principle commonly assumed in science and confirmed by our everyday experience)
Now, astute readers will be in position to see why Martin intentionally misconstructed the argument. He accepts the universe has a beginning, but he denies it was caused (something that he couldn't deny if he accepts the premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". Do you see why he didn't mention that premise at all in his straw man? It's an astute debating tactic, but it's a unacceptable for honest truth seekers and sincere lovers of wisdom)
4-Martin argues: "First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible"
How the hell the universe "could" arise out of "nothing"? Martin doesn't explain how such thing could occur. He simply asserts it, without any sound argument to support that view. (it's called the fallacy of proof by mere assertion) Coming from nothing would imply the existence of an effect without a cause, and this seems to be absurd and unintelligible (except for atheist ideologues eager to avoid a conclusion favourable to theism), since an effect is an essential element of a causal relation (i.e. a causal relation is causal precisely because there are causes and effects).
But Martin could reply that his point is precisely that there is not causal relation at all in the beginning of the universe. However, in that case, the burden of proof is in Martin to prove that claim. Simply asserting it is not an argument for it. Only uncritical thinkers will swallow such claim without any evidence or argument.
Moreover, we have powerful reasons to think such thing (coming from nothing) is metaphysically impossible. "Nothing" is not an entity or process, so it cannot create anything at all since "it" doesn't even exist. Nothing is nothing, it doesn't exist. It's not a being, a substance, an entity, a process, a state, a property... it's simply NOTHING (=absolute non-existence at all). Therefore, coming from nothing seems to be make no rational sense at all (but atheists prefer to believe in this nonsense before accepting that naturalism could be false).
Note that nautralists and materialists are "skeptics" of claims about psychokinesis and other phenomena suggesting the causal efficacy of the mind or consciousness, but are highly credulous when they heard that the universe was caused by or come from "nothing". (I ask objective readers: what is more likely, that a mind or consciousness could be causally efficacious, like in psychokinesis or the placebo effect; or that "nothing" could bring into existence something like the whole universe? Why the hell materialistic atheists are extremely skeptical of the former and believers in and highly sympathetic to the latter? I think the reason is obvious: Atheist irrationalists and ideologues are "skeptical" of the former, despite of the evidence for it, because it refutes their worldview; and they're believers of the latter, because it allows them to block the conclusion of the kalam cosmological argument and keep metaphysical naturalism alive. This is more evidence of the extreme weakness of atheistic metaphysical naturalism and, specially, of the fact that the cognitive faculties of these atheists don't function properly, and also of the fact that these individuals are not interested in the truth, but in the defense of their naturalistic-atheistic ideology)
Martin argues that: "Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible"
So what? The fact that several comsologists have embraced that view is not a logical argument for the conclusion that it's possible that something can come out of nothing. (Just imagine that I argue that several cosmologists or physicists are theists and have defended that the universe was caused by God. Does it, by itself, show that theism is possible?)
Weak arguments like that provide strong evidence of the extreme weakness of metaphysical naturalism (which rest mostly on faith and wishful thinking and fallacious arguments like that one)
But let's concede, only for the argument's sake and despite of Martin's weak arguments, that it's "possible" to something come from nothing.
Does it mean that such thing is "probable", likely or plausible in the specific case of the universe's beginning to exist? Does it mean we're epistemically justified in believing such thing? Even if it were logically possible that something could come from nothing, we need a reason to think that it is more likely than the (well-confirmed) premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The mere possibility of an idea is not an argument for the probability or plausibility of it. So, Martin needs an argument to convince us that something can come from nothing is not only "possible" (or at least conceivable) but more plausible than whatever begins to exist has cause (the latter is a principle confirmed by our experience, and assumed by science. After all, is not science in the business of explaining facts and phenomena appealing to the causal mechanisms that produce them? So, if the beginning of the universe is a fact, it is not a scientific explanation to say that it comes from nothing, without any rational explanation at all).
Just imagine a professional scientist who, confronted with a new phenomenon X (e.g. a new disease, or an explosion or whatever) would say: "Such phenomenon could come from nothing. Science doesn't require that whatever begins to exist has a cause, so there is not reason to think that the beginning to exist of such phenomenon was caused. It could simply exist, without any cause at all. Period" (Do you think that reply is proper of a scientist? Do you think that belief would help to improve science and promote scientific investigation? Does such belief would promote new and original scientific discoveries about the universe? Do you think it is a proper scientific stance?)
By the way, that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is plausible given our personal and collective experience and the practique of science; so who argues that such principle is false, is making an extraordinary claim given that background. But if it's the case, why the hell atheists don't appeal to the "skeptical principle" that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in that case? Exactly, which is the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that something can come out nothing? Where is the extraordinary evidence for that outlandish claim? Naturalist and materialist ideologues in their pseudo-skeptical humour appeal to that principle when they need to refute or cast doubts on paranormal claims (because such claims refutes naturalism and materialism); but when the claim is entailed or implied by naturalism (e.g. that the universe's beginning wasn't caused by anything), these ideologues "forget" the "extraordinary claims..." rule and uncritically accepts the unsupported claim that the universe came from nothing. (the same applies when these ideologues are highly sympathetic or even accept, without any evidence, the existence of multiverses, i.e. that there are many universes in addition to this one). This is product of wishful thinking, cognitive malfunctioning and irrationality typical of hard-core metaphysical naturalists and materialists.
Take for example the case of multiverses. In this article, infidels writer, atheist and naturalist Richard Carrier believes that such multiverses cannot be proved to exist or not exist, and hence we'd be agnostic about it: "Certainly, we cannot know they do. But we cannot know they do not and thus... agnosticism is the only justified outcome of this line of reasoning"
However, given that the multiverse hypothesis can explain the origin of this universe (and hence, make the hypothesis of God unnecessary, according to atheists), atheists are eager to believe in the evidentially unsupported (and accordintg to Carrier, in principle unprovable) multiverse hypothesis. In fact, in his book, Carrier is highly sympathetic about such evidentially unsupported hypothesis and even dare to make wild (and unprovable) speculations about its nature and features:
"Currently the most credible explanations of the nature and origin of the universe belong to “multiverse theory,” the idea that our universe is just one of many... We don’t yet know if the multiverse has existed for an infinite length of time, or if it had a beginning. . . . it may be that if we keep going back in time we will keep finding universe after universe, and it may well be it is universes all the way down. . . . Our universe is simply in the middle of a fixed, endless structure. For the same reason a multiverse that had a beginning would not have come “from” anywhere—there would exist nothing “before” the first ever moment of time, and that first moment of time, like every moment of time, would simply be an eternal fixed reality. It needs no cause. It is its own cause" (Sense and Goodness witout God, pp. 75-84)
If according to Carrier, the existence of multiple universes cannot in principle be known to exist, on what evidential grounds does Carrier say that the "multiverse theory" is credible? Why does he speculate about the properties of such entities (other universes) if such entities cannot be known to exist or not exist (so making his speculations untestable too)? Where's Carrier's agnosticism (the "only justified outcome of this line of reasoning")? Why does he consider such admittedly unprovable hypothesis to be "credible", while he's highly skeptical of psi claims which, according to skeptics like Wiseman, meet the usual evidential standards for any normal scientific claim (and hence, are scientifically better supported than the multiverse hypothesis, which is untestable, unsupported and in principle UNSUPPORTABLE)?
Do you see why I'm convinced that these individuals are not rational? They change their standards in a ad hoc way in order to keep their beliefs consistent and inmune from empirical or rational refutation. They're deluding themselves (and this is why I submit that these individuals' cognitive faculties don't function properly. Their minds don't function properly in order to figure out and discover the truth. They're irrational) They're not truth seekers, but ideologues, defenders of an atheistic, materialistic ideology. They have an extraordinary faith in and emotional commitment to naturalistic atheism, and they want to believe that atheism is true.
5-Martin's next move is to use another crude, dishonest and obvious straw man: "It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause" (emphasis in blue added)
Who's the hell is arguing that "everything has a cause"? No sophisticated philosophical theist I know of has ever defended such ridiculous statement. And Fernandes is not arguing such thing either.
Again, Martin intentionally misrepresent Fernandes' argument and assumes that is based on the view that "everyhting has a cause". But it is NOT Fernandes' premise. The actual premise is whatever BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause (the "BEGINS" word is key, since that such premise doesn't imply that everything, without exception, has a cause; it only asserts that things that begin to exist, that is, contingent or non-necessary things, needs a cause for their existence)
Atheists intentionally and dishonestly misconstruct the argument in order to make it more easily refutable (After all, atheists like to say, "if everything, without exception, has a cause, then God also needs a cause"... so the theist argument seems to be self-defeating) When you read such thing, you'll know for sure that these atheistic individuals are not worthy of intellectual respect.
In this article, philosopher Edward Feser, commenting on the common and intentional atheist's straw man ("everything has a cause"), has written: "In fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended."
And attacking an argument that no serious philosophical defender of the cosmological argument has ever defended (and certainly, no the argument that Fernandes is defending in his opening statement) is exactly what Martin is doing in his reply to Fernandes, in order to fool his readers and preach for the atheist chorus (a chorus of atheist believers and ideologues which lack the intellectual competence, honesty, objectivity and logical training to spot Martin's straw man fallacies).
It's a shame, since that serious philosophers are characterized by attacking the argument in its best version and as defended by its best proponents (instead of attacking silly straw men). Martin's misconstruction of the kalam argument, and his systematic use of straw men, is an insult to philosophy of religion and the readers' intelligence (in fact, in Martin's books, he repeats the same fallacy again and again when addresing the cosmological argument)
I'm used to that kind of atheistic intellectual dishonesty (or incompetence, or both), but I confess to get strongly annoyed each time I read such fallacies when they are used by supposedly competent atheist philosophers. I consider such thing an insult to philosophy in general and an offense to the intelligence of the readers, even of the honest atheist readers who are genuinely interested in finding the truth about God's existence or non-existence.
For more examples on that kind of intellectual dishonesty and incompetence by atheist philosophers and propagandists, and the "everything has a cause" atheistic straw man, please read this article in Edward Feser's blog.
At the same time, attacking a straw man suggests that the attacker cannot refute the argument in his best formulation (maybe, because the argument is good or plausible if formulated correctly or in its strongest form?)
6-Martin argues that "God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect"
But it doesn't imply that simultaneous causation doesn't exist. In fact, there are many cases where causes and effects are clearly simultaneous (e.g. the potter making a pot, where the potter's positioning his hand in such and such way and the pot's taking on such and such a shape are simultaneous. You can think in your own examples of simultaneous causation)
Routinely, professional philosophers (most of them atheists) interested in causation, discuss cases of actual simultaneous causation (i.e. where causes and effects are simultaneous) and even cases of (more speculatively) "backward causation". As has argued atheist philosopher of science James Ladyman: "Another characteristic of causal relations is that causes usually precede effects in time. Whether this is always so is not immediately obvious, because sometimes it seems that causes and effects can be simultaneous, as when we say that the heavy oak beam is the cause of the roof staying up. Furthermore, some philosophers hold that ‘backwards causation’ where a cause brings about an effect in the past is possible." (Understanding philosophy of science, p. 36)
Even atheist philosopher Quentin Smith, in his defense of the beginning of the universe without needing God as explanation, appeals to simultaneous causation in order to support his case. In his debate with William Lane Craig, atheist Smith argued: "Scientists have been saying for a long time that the universe began about 15 billion years ago with an explosion they call the Big Bang. Bill believes the Big Bang was caused by God and I believe it both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist. At the Big Bang there is a line of simultaneous causes and effects. This is implied both by a Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics and by the EPR correlations - for those of you in the audience who are science majors - which imply - you don't need to understand either of the sciences to understand my talk - and these theories imply that there are instantaneous causal relations between simultaneous events" (emphasis in blue added)
So, that causes usually precede their effects is true; but that causes MUST (always) precede their effects is false, and this point is widely known by philosophers specialized in causation and even explicitly defended by some atheist philosophers of religion (like Quentin Smith) to argue for their atheist case.
Therefore, supposing that God caused the universe, it is not logically nor metaphysically impossible for Him (who's "omnipotent") to bring the universe into existence simultaneously with the creation of the time.
CONCLUSION:
In my opinion, metaphysical naturalism is false (most posts of my blog present evidence for this conclusion). This explains why atheists like Martin employ fallacies when tryting to refute arguments against naturalism (e.g. argument for God's existence). You cannot defend a falsehood in a coherent way. The naturalist needs to distortion and misrepresent consistently the opponent's argument, in order to avoid the refutation of naturalism.
The above also explains why atheists contradict each other in essential points when arguing for their atheism. While Martin tries to block the cosmological argument saying that causes are prior to their effects, Quentin Smith argues his atheist case appealing to simultaneous causation.
The reason for that that they want to reach a atheism-favourable conclusion, and they try to rationalize (i.e. seek reasons to support a previously assumed to be true conclusion) their atheism, in order to find premisses that support their previously assumed atheistic conclusion. (Actual truth-seekers use the reverse procedure: they reach the conclusions AFTER having examined the best reasons for and against a given matter or claim).
As has conceded atheist Thomas Nagel: "I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
Obviously, if you don't want that a certain claim be true, and you're strongly committed to reject such claim, you're going to use every kind of fallacy in the book in order to avoid the conclusion that you dislike.
This is called WISHFUL THINKING, which is a kind of intellectual delusion and is rampant among metaphysical naturalists (and other people too), and it's the actual explanation of Martin's fallacies, specially his silly straw man and often repeated misrepresentation of the key premise of cosmological argument ("everthing has a cause").
Recommended reading:
-A summary and defense of some of the most sophisticated contemporary arguments for God's existence can be read in this paper by Christian theist and philosopher William Lane Craig (Even though Craig is a believer in the existence of the Christian God, astute readers will realize that some of his arguments support a broad conception of God in general as a supreme spiritual and causally creative cosmic intelligence of great power. Such arguments, like the cosmological argument, don't commit the readers to believe in any religious text or doctrine. It's what make these arguments very interesting from a purely philosophical point of view)
-For a summary of the cosmological arguments for God's existence, see this paper by David Oderberg.
-For an explanation of the "principle of causality" as actually defended by classical theists, see Edward Feser's book Aquinas.
-For a debate between an atheist and a theist on the kalam cosmological argument, see the book Theism, Atheism and The Big Bang Cosmology (by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith)
According to Dr. Fernandes the Kalam cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of God. This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God. I am willing to grant (1) although I believe that this premise is much more controversial than Dr. Fernandes supposes.[5] The other two premises I do not grant. First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible.[6] In particular, Dr. Fernandes misunderstands modern science very badly in supposing that embracing such a view would "destroy the pillars of modern science." It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause. Second, the cause of the universe need not be God. It could be a malevolent being or an impersonal force or a plurality of gods or a finite God. Of course, Dr. Fernandes uses other considerations to support his theistic interpretation of the cause of the Big Bang. But these considerations are not well argued for. For example, he maintains that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence; hence human intelligence cannot come from a mindless universe. However, no good reason is given for this claim and, in any case, a nonmindless universe is compatible with other hypotheses beside theism, for example, polytheism. Third, it is unclear how God could have caused the Big Bang since time is supposed to have been created in the Big Bang. God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect. In particular, causation in terms of intentions and desires are temporally prior to their effects. God's desires and intentions therefore cannot be the cause of the Big Bang. (emphasis in blue added)
Let's to examine Martin's contentions in more detail:
1-First, he misrepresents and misconstructs the kalam cosmological argument, when he formulates it like this: "This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God"
This is simply false. The kalam cosmological argument is actually constructed like this:
1)Whatever begins to exist have (or must have) a cause
2)The universe began to exist
3)Therefore, the universe had a cause
You can see a video explaining the actual formulation of this argument here:
In fact, Fernandes in his opening statement (to which Martin replied), explicitly formulate it in that way: "This argument is called the kalaam cosmological argument for God's existence. Saint Bonaventure utilized this argument.[1] William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland are two modern proponents of it.[2] This argument is as follows: 1) whatever began to exist must have a cause, 2) the universe began to exist, 3) therefore, the universe had a cause."(Emphasis in blue added)
So, note that Martin's misrepresentation of the kalam argument is intentional. It's known as a straw man fallacy and it's unworthy of serious philosophers (Personally, when I read "thinkers" defending intentionally fallacies like that, I loss any intellectual respect for them). Serious philosophers try to examine opposing arguments in their best formulation (i.e. in their strongest version) in order to assess the actual force (or weakness) of the argument. (Instead, propagandists and ideologues tend to use the straw man fallacies, because their purpose is not to find the truth and follow the argument where it leads, but to defend their cherished beliefs and ideology from falsification)
2-On the other hand, Martin's intentional misconstruction of the kalam argument is not an argument of all (all of the propositions used in Martin's straw man have not the form of a logically valid argument). Compare Martin's straw man with the actual formulation of the kalam argument (which is a formally valid argument).
When you see a person arguing like that, you have a powerful reason to doubt that person's intellectual competence. Given that Martin is a trained philosopher, it's unlikely that he cannot understand the arguments he's criticizing. So we can only conclude that his misinterpretation of the kalam argument is intentional (which suggest some kind of intellectual dishonesty).
3-Note Martin's intentional omission of the crucial metaphysical premise of the kalam argument: the premise that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". That premise is crucial, because it's what warrant the belief that the universe, if it began to exist, must have a cause. (So, the belief that the universe was caused is not arbitrary; rather, it's a consequence of a highly plausible metaphysical principle commonly assumed in science and confirmed by our everyday experience)
Now, astute readers will be in position to see why Martin intentionally misconstructed the argument. He accepts the universe has a beginning, but he denies it was caused (something that he couldn't deny if he accepts the premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". Do you see why he didn't mention that premise at all in his straw man? It's an astute debating tactic, but it's a unacceptable for honest truth seekers and sincere lovers of wisdom)
4-Martin argues: "First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible"
How the hell the universe "could" arise out of "nothing"? Martin doesn't explain how such thing could occur. He simply asserts it, without any sound argument to support that view. (it's called the fallacy of proof by mere assertion) Coming from nothing would imply the existence of an effect without a cause, and this seems to be absurd and unintelligible (except for atheist ideologues eager to avoid a conclusion favourable to theism), since an effect is an essential element of a causal relation (i.e. a causal relation is causal precisely because there are causes and effects).
But Martin could reply that his point is precisely that there is not causal relation at all in the beginning of the universe. However, in that case, the burden of proof is in Martin to prove that claim. Simply asserting it is not an argument for it. Only uncritical thinkers will swallow such claim without any evidence or argument.
Moreover, we have powerful reasons to think such thing (coming from nothing) is metaphysically impossible. "Nothing" is not an entity or process, so it cannot create anything at all since "it" doesn't even exist. Nothing is nothing, it doesn't exist. It's not a being, a substance, an entity, a process, a state, a property... it's simply NOTHING (=absolute non-existence at all). Therefore, coming from nothing seems to be make no rational sense at all (but atheists prefer to believe in this nonsense before accepting that naturalism could be false).
Note that nautralists and materialists are "skeptics" of claims about psychokinesis and other phenomena suggesting the causal efficacy of the mind or consciousness, but are highly credulous when they heard that the universe was caused by or come from "nothing". (I ask objective readers: what is more likely, that a mind or consciousness could be causally efficacious, like in psychokinesis or the placebo effect; or that "nothing" could bring into existence something like the whole universe? Why the hell materialistic atheists are extremely skeptical of the former and believers in and highly sympathetic to the latter? I think the reason is obvious: Atheist irrationalists and ideologues are "skeptical" of the former, despite of the evidence for it, because it refutes their worldview; and they're believers of the latter, because it allows them to block the conclusion of the kalam cosmological argument and keep metaphysical naturalism alive. This is more evidence of the extreme weakness of atheistic metaphysical naturalism and, specially, of the fact that the cognitive faculties of these atheists don't function properly, and also of the fact that these individuals are not interested in the truth, but in the defense of their naturalistic-atheistic ideology)
Martin argues that: "Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible"
So what? The fact that several comsologists have embraced that view is not a logical argument for the conclusion that it's possible that something can come out of nothing. (Just imagine that I argue that several cosmologists or physicists are theists and have defended that the universe was caused by God. Does it, by itself, show that theism is possible?)
Weak arguments like that provide strong evidence of the extreme weakness of metaphysical naturalism (which rest mostly on faith and wishful thinking and fallacious arguments like that one)
But let's concede, only for the argument's sake and despite of Martin's weak arguments, that it's "possible" to something come from nothing.
Does it mean that such thing is "probable", likely or plausible in the specific case of the universe's beginning to exist? Does it mean we're epistemically justified in believing such thing? Even if it were logically possible that something could come from nothing, we need a reason to think that it is more likely than the (well-confirmed) premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The mere possibility of an idea is not an argument for the probability or plausibility of it. So, Martin needs an argument to convince us that something can come from nothing is not only "possible" (or at least conceivable) but more plausible than whatever begins to exist has cause (the latter is a principle confirmed by our experience, and assumed by science. After all, is not science in the business of explaining facts and phenomena appealing to the causal mechanisms that produce them? So, if the beginning of the universe is a fact, it is not a scientific explanation to say that it comes from nothing, without any rational explanation at all).
Just imagine a professional scientist who, confronted with a new phenomenon X (e.g. a new disease, or an explosion or whatever) would say: "Such phenomenon could come from nothing. Science doesn't require that whatever begins to exist has a cause, so there is not reason to think that the beginning to exist of such phenomenon was caused. It could simply exist, without any cause at all. Period" (Do you think that reply is proper of a scientist? Do you think that belief would help to improve science and promote scientific investigation? Does such belief would promote new and original scientific discoveries about the universe? Do you think it is a proper scientific stance?)
By the way, that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is plausible given our personal and collective experience and the practique of science; so who argues that such principle is false, is making an extraordinary claim given that background. But if it's the case, why the hell atheists don't appeal to the "skeptical principle" that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in that case? Exactly, which is the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that something can come out nothing? Where is the extraordinary evidence for that outlandish claim? Naturalist and materialist ideologues in their pseudo-skeptical humour appeal to that principle when they need to refute or cast doubts on paranormal claims (because such claims refutes naturalism and materialism); but when the claim is entailed or implied by naturalism (e.g. that the universe's beginning wasn't caused by anything), these ideologues "forget" the "extraordinary claims..." rule and uncritically accepts the unsupported claim that the universe came from nothing. (the same applies when these ideologues are highly sympathetic or even accept, without any evidence, the existence of multiverses, i.e. that there are many universes in addition to this one). This is product of wishful thinking, cognitive malfunctioning and irrationality typical of hard-core metaphysical naturalists and materialists.
Take for example the case of multiverses. In this article, infidels writer, atheist and naturalist Richard Carrier believes that such multiverses cannot be proved to exist or not exist, and hence we'd be agnostic about it: "Certainly, we cannot know they do. But we cannot know they do not and thus... agnosticism is the only justified outcome of this line of reasoning"
However, given that the multiverse hypothesis can explain the origin of this universe (and hence, make the hypothesis of God unnecessary, according to atheists), atheists are eager to believe in the evidentially unsupported (and accordintg to Carrier, in principle unprovable) multiverse hypothesis. In fact, in his book, Carrier is highly sympathetic about such evidentially unsupported hypothesis and even dare to make wild (and unprovable) speculations about its nature and features:
"Currently the most credible explanations of the nature and origin of the universe belong to “multiverse theory,” the idea that our universe is just one of many... We don’t yet know if the multiverse has existed for an infinite length of time, or if it had a beginning. . . . it may be that if we keep going back in time we will keep finding universe after universe, and it may well be it is universes all the way down. . . . Our universe is simply in the middle of a fixed, endless structure. For the same reason a multiverse that had a beginning would not have come “from” anywhere—there would exist nothing “before” the first ever moment of time, and that first moment of time, like every moment of time, would simply be an eternal fixed reality. It needs no cause. It is its own cause" (Sense and Goodness witout God, pp. 75-84)
If according to Carrier, the existence of multiple universes cannot in principle be known to exist, on what evidential grounds does Carrier say that the "multiverse theory" is credible? Why does he speculate about the properties of such entities (other universes) if such entities cannot be known to exist or not exist (so making his speculations untestable too)? Where's Carrier's agnosticism (the "only justified outcome of this line of reasoning")? Why does he consider such admittedly unprovable hypothesis to be "credible", while he's highly skeptical of psi claims which, according to skeptics like Wiseman, meet the usual evidential standards for any normal scientific claim (and hence, are scientifically better supported than the multiverse hypothesis, which is untestable, unsupported and in principle UNSUPPORTABLE)?
Do you see why I'm convinced that these individuals are not rational? They change their standards in a ad hoc way in order to keep their beliefs consistent and inmune from empirical or rational refutation. They're deluding themselves (and this is why I submit that these individuals' cognitive faculties don't function properly. Their minds don't function properly in order to figure out and discover the truth. They're irrational) They're not truth seekers, but ideologues, defenders of an atheistic, materialistic ideology. They have an extraordinary faith in and emotional commitment to naturalistic atheism, and they want to believe that atheism is true.
5-Martin's next move is to use another crude, dishonest and obvious straw man: "It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause" (emphasis in blue added)
Who's the hell is arguing that "everything has a cause"? No sophisticated philosophical theist I know of has ever defended such ridiculous statement. And Fernandes is not arguing such thing either.
Again, Martin intentionally misrepresent Fernandes' argument and assumes that is based on the view that "everyhting has a cause". But it is NOT Fernandes' premise. The actual premise is whatever BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause (the "BEGINS" word is key, since that such premise doesn't imply that everything, without exception, has a cause; it only asserts that things that begin to exist, that is, contingent or non-necessary things, needs a cause for their existence)
Atheists intentionally and dishonestly misconstruct the argument in order to make it more easily refutable (After all, atheists like to say, "if everything, without exception, has a cause, then God also needs a cause"... so the theist argument seems to be self-defeating) When you read such thing, you'll know for sure that these atheistic individuals are not worthy of intellectual respect.
In this article, philosopher Edward Feser, commenting on the common and intentional atheist's straw man ("everything has a cause"), has written: "In fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended."
And attacking an argument that no serious philosophical defender of the cosmological argument has ever defended (and certainly, no the argument that Fernandes is defending in his opening statement) is exactly what Martin is doing in his reply to Fernandes, in order to fool his readers and preach for the atheist chorus (a chorus of atheist believers and ideologues which lack the intellectual competence, honesty, objectivity and logical training to spot Martin's straw man fallacies).
It's a shame, since that serious philosophers are characterized by attacking the argument in its best version and as defended by its best proponents (instead of attacking silly straw men). Martin's misconstruction of the kalam argument, and his systematic use of straw men, is an insult to philosophy of religion and the readers' intelligence (in fact, in Martin's books, he repeats the same fallacy again and again when addresing the cosmological argument)
I'm used to that kind of atheistic intellectual dishonesty (or incompetence, or both), but I confess to get strongly annoyed each time I read such fallacies when they are used by supposedly competent atheist philosophers. I consider such thing an insult to philosophy in general and an offense to the intelligence of the readers, even of the honest atheist readers who are genuinely interested in finding the truth about God's existence or non-existence.
For more examples on that kind of intellectual dishonesty and incompetence by atheist philosophers and propagandists, and the "everything has a cause" atheistic straw man, please read this article in Edward Feser's blog.
At the same time, attacking a straw man suggests that the attacker cannot refute the argument in his best formulation (maybe, because the argument is good or plausible if formulated correctly or in its strongest form?)
6-Martin argues that "God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect"
But it doesn't imply that simultaneous causation doesn't exist. In fact, there are many cases where causes and effects are clearly simultaneous (e.g. the potter making a pot, where the potter's positioning his hand in such and such way and the pot's taking on such and such a shape are simultaneous. You can think in your own examples of simultaneous causation)
Routinely, professional philosophers (most of them atheists) interested in causation, discuss cases of actual simultaneous causation (i.e. where causes and effects are simultaneous) and even cases of (more speculatively) "backward causation". As has argued atheist philosopher of science James Ladyman: "Another characteristic of causal relations is that causes usually precede effects in time. Whether this is always so is not immediately obvious, because sometimes it seems that causes and effects can be simultaneous, as when we say that the heavy oak beam is the cause of the roof staying up. Furthermore, some philosophers hold that ‘backwards causation’ where a cause brings about an effect in the past is possible." (Understanding philosophy of science, p. 36)
Even atheist philosopher Quentin Smith, in his defense of the beginning of the universe without needing God as explanation, appeals to simultaneous causation in order to support his case. In his debate with William Lane Craig, atheist Smith argued: "Scientists have been saying for a long time that the universe began about 15 billion years ago with an explosion they call the Big Bang. Bill believes the Big Bang was caused by God and I believe it both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist. At the Big Bang there is a line of simultaneous causes and effects. This is implied both by a Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics and by the EPR correlations - for those of you in the audience who are science majors - which imply - you don't need to understand either of the sciences to understand my talk - and these theories imply that there are instantaneous causal relations between simultaneous events" (emphasis in blue added)
So, that causes usually precede their effects is true; but that causes MUST (always) precede their effects is false, and this point is widely known by philosophers specialized in causation and even explicitly defended by some atheist philosophers of religion (like Quentin Smith) to argue for their atheist case.
Therefore, supposing that God caused the universe, it is not logically nor metaphysically impossible for Him (who's "omnipotent") to bring the universe into existence simultaneously with the creation of the time.
CONCLUSION:
In my opinion, metaphysical naturalism is false (most posts of my blog present evidence for this conclusion). This explains why atheists like Martin employ fallacies when tryting to refute arguments against naturalism (e.g. argument for God's existence). You cannot defend a falsehood in a coherent way. The naturalist needs to distortion and misrepresent consistently the opponent's argument, in order to avoid the refutation of naturalism.
The above also explains why atheists contradict each other in essential points when arguing for their atheism. While Martin tries to block the cosmological argument saying that causes are prior to their effects, Quentin Smith argues his atheist case appealing to simultaneous causation.
The reason for that that they want to reach a atheism-favourable conclusion, and they try to rationalize (i.e. seek reasons to support a previously assumed to be true conclusion) their atheism, in order to find premisses that support their previously assumed atheistic conclusion. (Actual truth-seekers use the reverse procedure: they reach the conclusions AFTER having examined the best reasons for and against a given matter or claim).
As has conceded atheist Thomas Nagel: "I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
Obviously, if you don't want that a certain claim be true, and you're strongly committed to reject such claim, you're going to use every kind of fallacy in the book in order to avoid the conclusion that you dislike.
This is called WISHFUL THINKING, which is a kind of intellectual delusion and is rampant among metaphysical naturalists (and other people too), and it's the actual explanation of Martin's fallacies, specially his silly straw man and often repeated misrepresentation of the key premise of cosmological argument ("everthing has a cause").
Recommended reading:
-A summary and defense of some of the most sophisticated contemporary arguments for God's existence can be read in this paper by Christian theist and philosopher William Lane Craig (Even though Craig is a believer in the existence of the Christian God, astute readers will realize that some of his arguments support a broad conception of God in general as a supreme spiritual and causally creative cosmic intelligence of great power. Such arguments, like the cosmological argument, don't commit the readers to believe in any religious text or doctrine. It's what make these arguments very interesting from a purely philosophical point of view)
-For a summary of the cosmological arguments for God's existence, see this paper by David Oderberg.
-For an explanation of the "principle of causality" as actually defended by classical theists, see Edward Feser's book Aquinas.
-For a debate between an atheist and a theist on the kalam cosmological argument, see the book Theism, Atheism and The Big Bang Cosmology (by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith)
0 comments:
Post a Comment