First Cause Argument, Fine-Tuning, and Kalam Cosmological Argument

First Cause Argument Q: What is the first premise of the First Cause Argument?

A: There exist things that are caused.

Q: What is the second premise of the First Cause Argument?

A: Nothing can be the cause of itself.

Q: What is the third premise of the First Cause Argument?

A: There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

Q: What is the conclusion of the First Cause Argument?

A: Therefore, there exists an uncaused first cause.

Q: What is the fifth premise of the First Cause Argument?

A: Uncaused first cause means God.

Q: What does the First Cause Argument conclude about God?

A: Therefore, God exists.

Q: What is a cause?

A: Roughly, something that brings about some effect.

Fine-Tuning Q: What is fine-tuning in the context of the universe?

A: The universe must meet extremely stringent conditions to permit life.

Q: What are some examples of fine-tuning conditions?

A: Strength of gravity, strong nuclear force, cosmological constant, and the universe’s initial state with lots of usable energy.

Q: How precise are the conditions required for life to exist, according to scientists?

A: Some constants couldn’t have varied by more than one part in 10^60.

Q: Does fine-tuning imply a fine tuner?

A: No, it simply means the constants happen to fall within the narrow range required for life.

Q: What kinds of outcomes are significant for fine-tuning explanations?

A: Outcomes that are valuable or algorithmically simple, such as consciousness and intelligent life.

Q: Is fine-tuning widely endorsed by experts?

A: Yes, it is endorsed by philosophers and scientists.

Fine-Tuning Argument Q: What is the first premise of the Fine-Tuning Argument?

A: If a fact E stands in need of explanation, and hypothesis H provides a better explanation than alternatives, then E supports H.

Q: What is the second premise of the Fine-Tuning Argument?

A: The fact that our universe is hospitable to life stands in need of explanation.

Q: What is the third premise of the Fine-Tuning Argument?

A: That God adjusted the constants to allow for life provides a satisfactory explanation.

Q: What is the fourth premise of the Fine-Tuning Argument?

A: There is no comparably satisfying alternative explanation.

Q: What is the conclusion of the Fine-Tuning Argument?

A: Therefore, the life-permitting universe provides significant evidential support for theism.

Defense of the Fine-Tuning Premises Q: What justifies Premise 1 of the Fine-Tuning Argument?

A: Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) is epistemically justifying.

Q: Why is Premise 2 plausible?

A: Any positive fact, especially improbable ones with significant outcomes, stands in need of explanation.

Q: Why is Premise 3 plausible?

A: The actions of a creator would explain the fine-tuning we observe.

Q: What is a potential challenge to Premise 4?

A: The multiverse theory could provide an alternative explanation.

Objections to the Fine-Tuning Argument Q: What is the Argument from Bad Lot objection?

A: It suggests that our selection of theories may be the best of a bad lot, rather than truly the best explanation.

Q: What is the Anthropic Principle objection?

A: It argues that we observe a life-permitting universe because we couldn’t exist in any other type of universe.

Q: What is the deeper fundamental law objection?

A: Some suggest that life-permitting conditions might be determined by a deeper fundamental law.

Q: What is the Multiverse Objection?

A: Given enough parallel universes, it’s likely that at least one will meet the conditions for organic life.

Q: What is the "God of the Gaps" objection?

A: The argument could be seen as filling gaps in scientific knowledge with the assumption of God.

Q: What is the objection about the fine-tuner God?

A: Invoking divine agency may be an unsatisfactory explanation because it introduces mystery without clarity.

Q: What is the Principle of Indifference?

A: In the absence of evidence, it’s rational to treat all outcomes as equally probable.

Why Uncaused Instead of Self-Caused? Q: Why is the concept of an uncaused cause not unintelligible?

A: Spontaneous decay of a radium atom is commonly viewed as uncaused.

Q: What is an intuitive example supporting an uncaused cause?

A: God is alleged to be like an uncaused cause, making the concept somewhat intuitive.

Kalam Cosmological Argument (W.L. Craig) Q: What is the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

A: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Q: What is the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

A: The universe began to exist.

Q: What is the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

A: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Q: What does the Kalam argument conclude about the cause of the universe?

A: The cause of the universe is God.

Q: What must defenders of the Kalam argument show?

A: (a) Concrete actual infinities are impossible. (b) Traversing an actual infinite is impossible.

Hilbert’s Hotel Thought Experiment Q: What is Hilbert’s Hotel?

A: A hypothetical hotel with a countably infinite number of rooms, all occupied.

Q: Can Hilbert’s Hotel accommodate more guests?

A: Yes, by moving every guest to the next room (n to n + 1), freeing room 1 for a new guest.

Q: Can Hilbert’s Hotel accommodate infinitely many new guests?

A: Yes, by moving all current guests to even-numbered rooms, freeing all odd-numbered rooms for new guests.

Q: What does Hilbert’s Hotel show about infinity?

A: Infinity is counterintuitive and may indicate that concrete actual infinities are contradictory.

Common Objections to the First Cause Argument Q: What is the objection regarding who caused God?

A: If everything needs a cause, then God would need a cause too.

Q: What is the objection about an eternal universe?

A: If the universe is eternal, there is no need for a first cause.

Q: What is the naming problem with the First Cause Argument?

A: Why assume the first cause is God rather than a physical phenomenon like quantum fluctuations?

Q: Why might some think the First Cause doesn’t care about us?

A: Even if there is a first cause, it doesn’t imply the cause has personal attributes like caring for humans.