Evaluation of god-argument

The logic is not inconsistent in the sense that C2 would follow from P1-P3, but the premises are offered without proof. Further, P1 implicitly contradicts P3.

P1 asserts a need for at least pre-existence of some precursor (see below) and strongly implies agency (purpose). P3 similarly asserts properties of the creating agent (timelessness etc), again without proof. Since these are given as assertions, it is not possible to say anything about their veracity; it follows that the conclusion has merit only as far as the premises are factual. In other words, it proves nothing useful about the truth of the conclusion.

In addition, if P3 is correct, the agent referred to in P3 was either a) was brought into being without a precursor or b) never brought into being. If a), P1 is false. If b), P1 is not comprehensive - there is no need to bring something into being for it to exist. 

P1: whatever that begins to exist is brought into being by something else.
P2: the universe began to exist.
C1: therefore the universe was brought into being by something else.

This argument is valid if the conclusion cannot be false when both premises are true.

What many apologists do is make it sound as though the validity somehow makes it true. This is an equivocation fallacy, valid only relates to the form of the argument and not whether the conclusion is true. The conclusion is only true if the premises are both true, and those would need to be demonstrated to be true. Garbage in, garbage out. 

P3: Whatever brought the universe into being must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful

This is special pleading. The only reason this is stated as a must is because without making up an excuse there is an infinite regress. I've seen people use the infinite regress as a justification for the excuse, which is certainly circular.

C2: the universe was brought into being by something timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful.

If premise 3 is true then this would be the conclusion, but it's not really an argument, all it's saying is "if X, then X". A premise should support the conclusion, not be the conclusion. That's not even circular, it's a dot. 

P1: whatever that begins to exist is brought into being by something else. (False)

This is basically the Kalam Cosmological Argument promoted by fundamentalist William Lane Craig, and has been thoroughly refuted by Lawrence Krauss in his book, "A Universe From Nothing".  He often cites how photons randomly pop in and out of existence all the time with no causal agent. Theists often claim 'creatio ex nihlio', that God Himself created the universe from nothing which assumes that God therefore is the causal something that creates things from nothing. Which leaves us with a petitio principii fallacy, and begs the paradoxical question, if God (something) existed before the universal (nothing) where then did this supernatural something originate? And if such a pre-universal force created matter, energy, gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces from nothing why is there no residual particle of that originating supernatural force traceable within the Standard Model of Particles?  Quantum Field Theory would suggest we would have detected it by now. The premise collapses entirely on its own circular absurdity and false premise.

P2: The universe began to exist.  (False)

We don't know this as a fact. The consensus now is the universe is infinite and eternal and our (observable) universe is just a part of an older eternal universe with no beginning or end. 

“To say the universe is infinitely old is to say that it had no beginning—not a beginning that was infinitely long ago". Philosopher Keith Parsons.

C1: Therefore the universe was brought into being by something else.  

Begging the Question again. Assumes what is yet to be proven.

P3: Whatever brought the universe into being must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful 
C2: the universe was brought into being by something timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful. 

Non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow the premise. Presumably a supernatural force that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and yet powerful is essentially a teleological phantom.  

Postscript: The claim that the universe began with the big bang has no basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge. The observations confirming the big bang do not rule out the possibility of a prior universe.

Theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a pre-existing one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so-called “quantum fluctuations.”

The equations of cosmology that describe the early universe apply equally for the other side of the time axis, so we have no reason to assume that the universe began with the big bang.

P1 - C1 is a valid argument .

As for P3 and C2, this is a essentially the same premise stated in two different ways, not circular, but a tautology .

As for the soundness of the first argument,

P1: whatever that begins to exist is brought into being by something else. 

What we have are examples of "stuff" rearranging forming new "stuff." So by "existence," we are referring to a specific arrangement of matter and energy, not creation from nothing as "brought into being" implies.

the universe began to exist.

Possibly. We can only speculate what happened "before" the singularity, if there was a before, or if the concept of "before time" even makes sense (like north of the North pole).

Given this, we cannot reasonably accept both premises as true, and cannot accept the argument as sound, thus not accepting the conclusion.

Whatever brought the universe into being must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful 

Just for kicks, let's assume the universe was "brought into being."

• It would reason that it wouldn't exist in our time, but we cannot say anything about another dimension of time.


• It would reason that it wouldn't exist in our space, but we cannot say anything about another dimension of space.


• It couldn't be material in our universe, but that doesn't mean it couldn't me material in another dimension.


• A flap of a butterfly's wings and lead to a tsunami. A single match can destroy millions of acres of forest. A tiny virus can wipe out all of a population. Either power is not required to produce major results, or we are defining power by the results of that which we call "powerful" caused, not what it can do at will.

Hi, Lars C!

The inclusion of P1 and C1 does not have the result of making the argument circular. A person needn’t accept C1 in order to accept P1. Also, a person can argue for P1 without assuming C1. In fact, as far as P1 is concerned, C1 is false. 

It is fine that the argument has more than one component inference—one inference to C1 and second to C2. C2 is what is called the main conclusion and C1 is the intermediate conclusion. An argument like this, having more than one component inference, is called a complex argument.

I think Dr. Bennett has an interesting point that the relation between P3 and C2 is tautological, but it may be that the “whatever” in P3 indicates a universal conditional statement, as in “for anything, if it brought the universe into existence, then it must be…”. If it is a universal conditional statement, then C2 follows by Modus Ponens from C1 and P3 and is not a tautology of P3. But the language of the premise is unclear about all of this. A defender of this argument might want to impart lucidity into that premise.

Now, if you are really looking for an evaluation of the argument, like what Dr. Bennett spent most of his Answer offering, then I may be able to give a brief one, as well. But this is all if time permits. And there are many philosophers who discuss cosmological arguments similar to the one you present. I can point you towards a few of these scholars, both advocates and critics, if you’d like.

Thank you, Lars C

From, Kaiden

There is no scientific or other evidence that a re-action can occur without any primary action; there is no evidence that energy, motion, intelligence, design, life or mathematics can randomly exist unto itself.  Thus, all of the evidence known to humanity points to Eternal Primary Cause somewhere up the chain of events.  No one in the history of human civilization has come up with a better explanation for own existence than "before Abraham was, I am".

As far as declaring yourself to be an atheist, so what?  What does embracing atheism do to either a) explain our own existence or b) solve any of humanities problems?  Why should anyone be an atheist?  What good does it do either you or anyone else?  Atheism doesn't rationally explain anything at all and thus, it has no value to a wayward race called "human being", a wayward race facing mass pollution, global war, famine, pestilence and planetary extinction here in the 21st Century.