This distinguished professor offers evidence of God's existence.

Heads up, logicians, and fallacyophites,

There's a promising debate just beginning on Dr. Richard Carrier's website about the existence of God. I'll let you hunt it down and follow it up on your own.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15158<>

In the opening preface this syllogism is claimed:

If the universe began to exist, the universe has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The cause of the universe is most plausibly God.

I can name a number of fallacies in this. Can you?

Hmm.

Two points strike me right away.

The first is that many of the world's greatest philosophers have tried to prove or disprove the existence of God with philosophical arguments. Not one of them has come up with an enduring argument. The idea that so many brilliant thinkers have overlooked such a simple argument as the one in this example is implausible.

Second, the argument quickly comes down to a tautology. If you assume that the universe had a beginning (which is a scientific question, not a philosophical one), and if you assume that all events have a cause (which is a metaphysical question), the argument basically says that something caused the universe, and, whatever or whoever that something or someone is, we can call that something or someone God. But this argument reduces the debate about God's existence to a triviality.

(A tautology is an argument like "no married man is a bachelor" (the classic from my undergrad days) or "since we are at war, we are not at peace." Such arguments are merely word games and they rarely tell us anything important.

Thanks Doc,

The first is that many of the world's greatest philosophers have tried to prove or disprove the existence of God with philosophical arguments. Not one of them has come up with an enduring argument.

Meh, that's not precisely true. There are many arguments pro and con that endure and remain compelling.

But more importantly isn't that an Argument ad ignorantiam? See Dr. Bo's:

Argument from Ignorance
ad ignorantiam

(also known as: appeal to ignorance)

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Logical Forms:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
Example #1:

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.

NEXT:

Second, the argument quickly comes down to a tautology. If you assume that the universe had a beginning (which is a scientific question, not a philosophical one).

Agreed!

But we also have to arrive at a definition of "cause". There can be a causal action, but not necessarily a purposeful one. For example: quantum tunneling or Hawking's radiation might be causal, but not purposeful.

{quote the argument basically says that something caused the universe, and, whatever or whoever that something or someone is, we can call that something or someone God.

Agreed. (Special pleading)

But this argument reduces the debate about God's existence to a triviality.

I'm not sure if it reduces the debate to a triviality, but it certainly reduces it to a non-sequitur. I mean, to go from a bombastic interpretation of singularity or cosmic inflation to a supernatural cause is a real stretch - hence, non-sequitur or Special Pleading.

If the universe began to exist, the universe has a cause.

We can start with this being an unsupported claim. The fact is, outside the dimension of time, "began" is nonsensical, just like saying that something is north of the north pole.

The other implied claim here is also problematic, that (as it is usually written in the Kalam Cosmological Argument) whatever begins to exist has a cause. This is an inference (and argument in itself) that basically states that all the things we know of that begin to exist have a cause, therefore, all the things we don't know of the begin to exist also have a cause. This is an hasty generalization . We can correct this by saying "therefore, all the things we don't know of the begin to exist probably also have a cause." By doing so, we just removed the logical certainty that the arguer is going for with the deductive syllogism.

The universe began to exist.

This begs the question . Besides the time issue mentioned previously, we only know how the universe expanded a moment after "The Big Bang" and we know nothing "before." In other words, our knowledge of the event begins with existence... something is already there. Through the same method of induction on which the first premise relies, we can also say that everything we know of that exists is made up of other "stuff" that has already existed, therefore, what we call our universe probably is also made up of stuff that already existed. This means that the universe only began to exist in name, but the building blocks always existed. In other words, we don't have a unique act of creation; we have common instance of energy changing forms.

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

We can no longer conclude this with any level of confidence, but assuming we can...

The cause of the universe is most plausibly God.

This is a simply an assertion. In fairness to the person who made this argument, I would suspect that they are prepared to offer other arguments and lines of evidence as to why they came up with this conclusion. But as it stands now, it is simply an assertion with zero support as the premises given don't at all support this conclusion.

I am not the first to say this as this argument for God has been around for quite some time, but at best this argument can be claimed to establish that the universe has a cause. Other arguments are then needed to provide evidence that the cause is "most plausibly God".

I would go with Dr. Bo's analysis here, but i have to chime in that the Premise "The universe began to exist" is simply false. The thing is, nothing, or no entity if you prefer, "Begins" to exist. If you went ahead, and completely ignored all of Science, this wouldn't change, and here's why.

By definition, nonexistence can't exist.
It follows that existence can't stop existing, because if it did, it would not be existence.

This is undeniably true. Things change aspect, matter rearranges itself, but never stops existing in some way. "Nothing" can't be, because of the above logic. The whole argument goes out the window just like this.

Not only that, but using logic to prove God is pointless. Anything that is not contradictory, is possible when you speak of it A Priori. Without evidence, the most perfect syllogisms are a string of meaningless words. Even if there was a perfect argument for God, Logic alone can't justify anything without a tiny bit of Empiricism in there.

The four statements contain no formal fallacy. The set of four statements is not a syllogism as commonly defined.

In regard to the first, the proponent (Marshall) draws a distinction between the first three statements and the fourth. He states that the first three statements constitute a deductive argument. It is a valid argument that contains no formal fallacy. The proponent states that the fourth statement is a future step in which he will show certain things. We cannot discuss his line of reasoning before he has revealed it.

In regard to the second, a syllogism as commonly defined has a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. The first three statements contain no major premise; as arranged they employ the modus ponens rule of inference.

I'll start from the last statement provided:

The cause of the universe is most plausibly God.

This is just a blind baseless assertion floating on the air and not predicated on any supporting premises and/or evidence. It doesn't follow from the argument above it that God is the most plausible cause of the universe. All that can be shown from that argument (if sound) is that the universe had a cause.

If the universe began to exist, the universe has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The structure of this argument is deductively valid (modus ponens), so the only way to contend with it is checking its soundness through the truth of its premises. I take issue with the first premise:

If the universe began to exist, the universe has a cause.

Another baseless assertion. There isn't good basis to allegedly assert this claim.