An objection to a cosmological modal argument

tryhard

I’ve been searching for theist arguments that seem to hold the most promise. Recently, I was presented with the following argument (paraphrased from Joshua Rasmussen):

1. For any possible limit, there’s a possible external explanation
2. Explanations aren’t entirely included in that which they explain
3. Having limits is a limit
4. Therefore, there is a possible explanation of having limits
5. The only possible explanation of having limits must be in terms of something without limits
6. Therefore, it’s possible that something has no limits
7. Whatever has no limits is of supreme nature
8. Therefore, it is possible that there’s a supreme being
9. A supreme being is either impossible or necessary
10. A supreme being is not impossible.
11. Therefore, a supreme being is necessary

This argument seems to be quite robust. However, I worry about the correctness of the first premise. If there is but one successful counter example of something explainable in itself, the whole argument will suffer, as the argument relies fundamentally on deducing a supreme being from the observation that there must be a limitless thing to explain limited ones. I can think of two potential counters: mathematics and reality itself.

First, I worry about mathematical concepts. Numbers as a set seem to be unexplainable outside of themselves. While they are limited in their individual value, it seems that the limit can only be explained by other numbers. For example, the number 50 is explained by numbers 1-49, but the number cannot be explained by anything outside of itself. It seems to be a limited concept but a fully contained concept. How can we explain mathematics in terms that are external to mathematics?

Secondly, reality itself seems unexplainable outside of itself. Reality, by definition, encompasses everything that is. There being an explanation external to reality is a contradiction. It may be that reality is unlimited and therefore needs no external explanation, but everything we encounter in reality is limited. How can this be?

What do you think - are numbers and reality counters to the argument, exceptions to the categories, or are there other concepts without external explanation that you can provide?

I look forward to hearing your responses, as this will help me better understand what a supreme being might be like.

Gregory

↪tryhard

The first part of the argument that limits imply infinity and then it says necessity means exists. None is supported

Kuro

necessity means exists. None is supported — Gregory

To say that necessity entails existence is uncontroversial and does not need support IMO. If a being exists in all possible worlds it exists in the actual world, which is a possible world.

EugeneW

What about this necessity argument:

1. There is a gap between what we know and the
fundamental laws of the universe.
2. This gap can be closed.
3. This results in an understanding of the fundamental
workings and evolution of the cosmos.
4. The fundamental laws cannot stand on their own or be
their own cause, even when eternal. They are too
stupid for that.
5. It follows God exists.

Tom Storm

↪EugeneW

I don't think so. No 2 is an assumption. 'Gap' is a metaphor - 'closing it' is another own. What we might be dealing with is a kind of information humans can't fathom.
3 doesn't follow from 2 (even if you grant 2 as possible). Potentially 'a gap can be closed' without us understanding how it works. 4 is just a claim (something William Lane Craig might assert).

Seems a long way to present a woo of the gaps argument. :razz:

EugeneW

Seems a long way to present a woo of the gaps argument. — Tom Storm

It's a proof of the gap argument. The assumption it can be closed is more reasonable than that it can't be closed.

Tom Storm

1. For any possible limit, there’s a possible external explanation
2. Explanations aren’t entirely included in that which they explain
3. Having limits is a limit
4. Therefore, there is a possible explanation of having limits
5. The only possible explanation of having limits must be in terms of something without limits
6. Therefore, it’s possible that something has no limits
7. Whatever has no limits is of supreme nature
8. Therefore, it is possible that there’s a supreme being
9. A supreme being is either impossible or necessary
10. A supreme being is not impossible.
11. Therefore, a supreme being is necessary — tryhard

There's a modest trick being played here with the word 'supreme'.

7 - Whatever has no limits is of supreme nature. No - you could equally say is of 'unknown nature'.

Supreme is here in order to lead to supreme being. It's a conceit of linguistic prestidigitation.

Tom Storm

It's a proof of the gap argument. The assumption it can be closed is more reasonable than that it can't be closed. — EugeneW

An 'assumption' as you say which is an unnecessary one. Plus there's the problem with the premises I mentioned.

But I enjoy these games sometimes so keep them coming. :up:

EugeneW

An 'assumption' as you say which is an unnecessary one. — Tom Storm

If you don't make this assumption you will never hit rock bottom. It's physical reality though that is the arbiter. We know when nature says that you found the bottom. You won't be able to go further. I don't see why we can't fathom nature. If the gap is closed we understand nature. Except where it came from, as it can't account for itself.

Tom Storm

If you don't make this assumption you will never hit rock bottom — EugeneW

Exactly - which is why I don't make it. This seems to be a simple fallacy from personal incredulity or an appeal to common sense.

There is no good evidence that humans will understand ultimate truth or that ultimate truth is even a thing. It might be argued that we've simply inferred this foundational concept from the limitations of human understanding.

T Clark

I’ve been searching for theist arguments that seem to hold the most promise. Recently, I was presented with the following argument — tryhard

I'll go line by line:

1. For any possible limit, there’s a possible external explanation - I'm not exactly sure what this means, but...ok.
2. Explanations aren’t entirely included in that which they explain - I'm not exactly sure what this means, but... ok.
3. Having limits is a limit - I'm not exactly sure what this means, but...ok.
4. Therefore, there is a possible explanation of having limits - Again... ok.
5. The only possible explanation of having limits must be in terms of something without limits - I don't see why this is true. If you come to my house for dinner and I tell you that you can go anywhere in the house except the living room because it is being painted, I have set limits in terms of something with limits, i.e. my house.
6. Therefore, it’s possible that something has no limits - I don't see how this follows logically, but I do believe that it is possible that something has no limits, e.g. it is my understanding that the most accepted model of the universe is that it is finite but unbounded.
7. Whatever has no limits is of supreme nature - I'm not sure what you mean by "supreme" in this case. Be that as it may, I don't think this follows from anything that has been postulated previously.
8. Therefore, it is possible that there’s a supreme being - I think it is possible that there is a supreme being, but I don't think it follows logically from anything that has been postulated previously.
9. A supreme being is either impossible or necessary - I don't see why this would be true. Do you think it's self-evident? It's not.
10. A supreme being is not impossible. - Yes, I've agreed to that.
11. Therefore, a supreme being is necessary - No.

These types of so-called "rational" arguments for God seem wrong-headed to me. I haven't ever read one that I found even slightly convincing.

EugeneW

There is no good evidence that humans will understand ultimate truth — Tom Storm

There is very good evidence, I might say. We understand most parts of the universe, so why not the fundaments? What we will never understand is where the fundaments themselves come from. And that's where God comes walking in.

Tom Storm

There is very good evidence, I might say. We understand most parts of the universe, so why not the fundaments? What we will never understand is where the fundaments themselves come from. And that's where God comes walking in. — EugeneW

:lol:

T Clark

There is no good evidence that humans will understand ultimate truth
— Tom Storm

There is very good evidence, I might say. We understand most parts of the universe, so why not the fundaments? What we will never understand is where the fundaments themselves come from. And that's where God comes walking in. — EugeneW

There is no good evidence that humans will understand ultimate truth or that ultimate truth is even a thing. — Tom Storm

I think Tom Storm's second possibility, that there is no ultimate truth, is probably correct.

EugeneW

I think Tom Storm's second possibility, that there is no ultimate truth, is probably correct. — T Clark

Probably correct is the same as probably incorrect. It's correct or it's incorrect. I think its incorrect.

Tom Storm

I think Tom Storm's second possibility, that there is no ultimate truth, is probably correct. — T Clark

And if you think ultimate truth is elusive, try finding a plumber on the weekend.

EugeneW

And if you think ultimate truth is elusive, try finding a plumber on the weekend. — Tom Storm

:lol:

God is the ultimate plummer! You want his number?

Could be he's busy though. Much demand these days.

T Clark

deleted

Angelo Cannata

Any argument in this world, including theistic and non theistic arguments, can be easily demolished with some criticism.
For example, no argument is able to give proof that tomorrow nobody will be able to discover flaws and mistakes in it. No argument is able to be independent from the person who thinks of it. No argument is able to avoid leading to an infinite chain of explanations if we ask “why?” to it and to the answers given to “why?”.

An objection to a cosmological modal argument

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions