What do you think?
Rate this book
God and Ultimate Origins: A Novel Cosmological Argument
This book develops a novel argument which combines the Kalam with the Thomistic Cosmological Argument. It approaches an ongoing dispute concerning whether there is a First Cause of time from a radically new point of view, namely by demonstrating that there is such a First Cause without requiring the controversial arguments against concrete infinities and against traversing an actual infinite (although the book presents original defenses of these arguments as well). This book also develops a novel philosophical argument for the Causal Principle, namely that ‘everything that begins to exist has a cause’, and offers a detailed discussion on whether a First Cause of time can be avoided by a causal loop. It also addresses epistemological issues related to the Cosmological Argument which have been relatively neglected by recent publications, and demonstrates (contra Hawking et al) the continual relevance and significance of philosophy for answering ultimate questions.
200 pages, Hardcover
Published September 22, 2017
4 people are currently reading
74 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 20, 2021
This may be the best book I've read on cosmological arguments so far. Loke presents a novel cosmological argument that combines the Kalam with the Thomistic argument. This combination keeps the strengths of both and eliminates their respective weaknesses. Most significantly, Loke's argument focuses only on the impossibility of an infinite causal series and therefore doesn't depend on proving that actual infinities themselves are impossible (which is one major limitation of the Kalam).
If Loke's argument is sound, an infinite causal chain is causally impotent because the causal powers of any step is zero unless acted upon by a prior cause. But in an infinite chain, there is no initial cause, so nothing could ever happen because no step is ever acted upon and therefore has a causal capacity of zero. So given any change in reality whatsoever there must be a first uncaused cause. After a detailed exploration of the necessary characteristics of this cause, Loke demonstrates that it must be - among other things- an immaterial personal agent. This description coheres with the being we call God.
Loke's writing is thorough and clear. This is one of those books where you want to underline just about every sentence because everything is insightful. One of the most important points Loke makes is that metaphysical impossibilities are more powerful than logical possibilities. In other words, if something is logically possible but metaphysically impossible then it is actually impossible.
This is significant because it means appeals to cosmological models containing past-infinite causes or causal loop timelines are incapable of defeating Loke's metaphysical argument against the possibilities of infinite causal chains and causal loops. Instead, the metaphysical argument stands as a defeater for the cosmological models.
Throughout the book, Loke effectively engages with objections from philosophers like Quentin Smith, Graham Oppy, and Wes Morriston, as well as scientists like Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll, and Stephen Hawking. In fact, Loke deals extensively with Hawking's proposals during his demonstration that this first uncaused cause is God. In each case, the objections are shown to be faulty, and Loke's argument remains unscathed.
In summary, if you're interested in the question of whether or not God exists, you need to read this book. This is doubly necessary if you find cosmological arguments intriguing. Agree or disagree with Loke's arguments, he has certainly presented a powerful case that cannot be dismissed easily. You will not be disappointed.
If Loke's argument is sound, an infinite causal chain is causally impotent because the causal powers of any step is zero unless acted upon by a prior cause. But in an infinite chain, there is no initial cause, so nothing could ever happen because no step is ever acted upon and therefore has a causal capacity of zero. So given any change in reality whatsoever there must be a first uncaused cause. After a detailed exploration of the necessary characteristics of this cause, Loke demonstrates that it must be - among other things- an immaterial personal agent. This description coheres with the being we call God.
Loke's writing is thorough and clear. This is one of those books where you want to underline just about every sentence because everything is insightful. One of the most important points Loke makes is that metaphysical impossibilities are more powerful than logical possibilities. In other words, if something is logically possible but metaphysically impossible then it is actually impossible.
This is significant because it means appeals to cosmological models containing past-infinite causes or causal loop timelines are incapable of defeating Loke's metaphysical argument against the possibilities of infinite causal chains and causal loops. Instead, the metaphysical argument stands as a defeater for the cosmological models.
Throughout the book, Loke effectively engages with objections from philosophers like Quentin Smith, Graham Oppy, and Wes Morriston, as well as scientists like Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll, and Stephen Hawking. In fact, Loke deals extensively with Hawking's proposals during his demonstration that this first uncaused cause is God. In each case, the objections are shown to be faulty, and Loke's argument remains unscathed.
In summary, if you're interested in the question of whether or not God exists, you need to read this book. This is doubly necessary if you find cosmological arguments intriguing. Agree or disagree with Loke's arguments, he has certainly presented a powerful case that cannot be dismissed easily. You will not be disappointed.
April 29, 2021
I'm not really a KCA fan, but I found it valuable to learn more on the literature and some updated formulations of the argument. I really enjoyed his discussion of the present generator paradox because I think that makes more sense and is tighter than the paradoxes Craig has suggested like Hilbert's Hotel. I also really found his discussion of concrete vs. abstract infinites helpful, but I really wish he would delve not just into broad finitism, but causal finitism from Pruss and Koons since I think that would be the strongest argument for premise 2, committing itself to the fewest ontological commitments while still being strong. I also liked his explanation of why exactly the property (or pseudo-property I suppose) of being beginningless coincides with being uncaused, as being uncaused requires that lack of beginning by nature of the property of being uncaused and it's entailments.
The only section I found pretty weak was his defense of using the Thomistic analysis of causal series here. I didn't really understand how you could import the arguments for a per se series into a per accidens series as Kalam uses, but perhaps I was just misinterpreting him.
Overall though, a nice read and something I'd recommend to people if they can get it for less than $25. I don't think it's worth Amazon's high price tag.
The only section I found pretty weak was his defense of using the Thomistic analysis of causal series here. I didn't really understand how you could import the arguments for a per se series into a per accidens series as Kalam uses, but perhaps I was just misinterpreting him.
Overall though, a nice read and something I'd recommend to people if they can get it for less than $25. I don't think it's worth Amazon's high price tag.
September 24, 2024
Dr. Loke's books are undoubtedly the best on the subject of Kalam and the systematization of all the arguments for and against.
September 10, 2021
This is probably the best book on the Cosmological Argument that I have read in a long time. It's a scholarly book, so it is a bit technical, but it isn't TOO technical. Andrew Loke starts the book with epistemological issues such as whether it's even possible to come to an answer regarding ultimate origins, and whether philosophy should play any role or whether the task should be left solely to science. He shows how people who say either that only science can determine truth or that science is the best way of knowing truth are wrong. In the first case, strong scientism (as this view is called) is logically self refuting, for the claim "only science can tell us what's true" cannot be verified by any scientific principles. It's a philosophical statement. Therefore, if it's true that only science can tell us what is true, then one cannot know whether it is true that science can only tell us what is true. In the case of people who admit that philosophy and theology are other ways of knowing things, but who insist nevertheless that science is the BEST way, Andrew Loke says that in some cases, this is correct. However, which way of learning the truth really depends on exactly what it is you're trying to know. Are you trying to know how energy works? Are you trying to learn how to build a computer? Are you trying to learn how to cure cancer? Then science IS the best way. Philosophy will get you nowhere here. However, if you're trying to answer questions such as whether a shapeless cube can exist, or whether it is metaphysically possible that a beginningless series of events can exist, then you'd best go to philosophy. Moreover, Loke shows how even the principles undergirding the scientific method are derived from philosophical reasoning. As Frank Turek has said, "Science is a slave to philosophy." He addresses some other issues in the first chapter as well.
Loke goes on to defend the arguments for the beginning of the universe on the basis of the two arguments against actual infinites; i.e the argument that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist, and the argument that you cannot traverse an actually infinite number of things. Moreover, he deals with objections to these arguments from some of the most top notch atheist philosophers writing today such as Stephen Peryear, Graham Oppey, Quenten Smith, Rudolph Grunbaum, et. al. He also looks at scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe (e.g The Big Bang), but he doesn’t make this the sole focus of his book, because Loke’s task is to show that through metaphysical argumentation alone, you can show that the universe had a beginning and ergo a First Cause.
As advertised, Andrew Loke’s argument is a blend of the Kalam and Thomistic Version of the argument, and Loke even has his own syllogism. He makes the case that you don't NEED the arguments against the actual infinites for the argument to go through (because he utilizes another argument), but if the arguments against infinites are sound, they do the trick just as much as his Thomistic argumentation does in supporting the premise (which is premise 3, I think, in the syllogism below). The syllogism for Andrew Loke's cosmological argument is as follows:
1: There exist entities that: (i) are members of a causal series; and (ii) begin to exist.
2: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
3: If there is an entity that: (i) is a member of a causal series; and (ii) begins to exist, then there is an uncaused entity X.
4: There exists an X which is uncaused and beginningless (From 1, 2 and 3).
5: If X is uncaused and beginningless, nothing exists prior to it, and therefore it is a First Cause.
6: X is a First Cause (From 4 and 5).
Even if you still continue to use the classic Kalam Cosmological Argument (as I do), the material that Loke presents is invaluable. After all, his argument does have a lot of the Kalam's "DNA" so to speak. So even if you want to just use the Craigian version, what you'll learn in this book will be helpful. You'll become an even stronger defender even of the Craigian-Ghazali version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Loke presents some ways in which you can defend the arguments for a beginning of the universe, and the argument that those arguments can succeed regardless of whether the A theory or the B theory of time succeeds. Wait, let me rephrase that. In chapter 5 of Loke's book, which is the chapter that Loke defends the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause, Loke says that unlike William Lane Craig's version of the cosmological argument, his version does not require the A theory of time in order to be valid. It can work on either in A theory or a B theory of time. So, if the universe began to exist, and everything that begins to exist requires a cause, it needs a cause, a God-Like cause. No matter what theory of time you may think is true. I really really like this. As Loke himself says, having to defend the A Theory of time is no easy task. For me personally, any way I can defend my conclusions without having to do extra work is quite welcome. Maybe that's one reason why I'm a fan of The Minimal Facts argument for Jesus' resurrection over the New Testament Reliability Approach. I like being able to concede things and still be able to make my case. I won’t unpack his reasoning here. Get the book to find out for yourself how he pulls this off!
If you have reservations about the full blown ontology of God known as Thomism, don't worry about it. When I first got this book, I was afraid that I might not be able to agree with Loke because I reject full blown Thomism. I have issues with things like divine impassibility and the idea that "God has no potential. He's pure actuality.” and “God is identical to his attributes”. None of that comes into play in Loke's defense of his argument. The only thing Thomistic about the argument is that the way he defends premise 3 is that he utilizes Thomas Aquinas' insights about causation.
Regarding alternative cosmologies that try to avert the absolute beginning of physical reality, Loke deals with this in pretty much the way I do in my blog post on CerebralFaith.net titled "Eternal Universe Models: Going For The Philosophical Jugular". He shows that whatever scientific or mathematical support they may have in their favor or whatever scientific problems they may have, ultimately they need to be discarded because they are metaphysically impossible. They do not succeed at avoiding the problems of actual infinites, and his Thomistic argument that shows that an infinite causal chain is causally impotent because the causal powers of any step is zero unless acted upon by a prior cause. But in an infinite chain, there is no initial cause, so nothing could ever happen because no step is ever acted upon and therefore has a causal capacity of zero. So given any change in reality whatsoever there must be a first uncaused cause. Something may be mathematically possible in the mathematical realm, but still be metaphysically impossible. For example, the quadratic equation's answer may be either "-2" or "2" but no possible answer to "How many people carried the computer home" could be "-2 People". Negative 2 entities have zero causal powers. Thus, metaphysical considerations carry heavier weight than mathematical ones.
I think this is a great book.
Loke goes on to defend the arguments for the beginning of the universe on the basis of the two arguments against actual infinites; i.e the argument that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist, and the argument that you cannot traverse an actually infinite number of things. Moreover, he deals with objections to these arguments from some of the most top notch atheist philosophers writing today such as Stephen Peryear, Graham Oppey, Quenten Smith, Rudolph Grunbaum, et. al. He also looks at scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe (e.g The Big Bang), but he doesn’t make this the sole focus of his book, because Loke’s task is to show that through metaphysical argumentation alone, you can show that the universe had a beginning and ergo a First Cause.
As advertised, Andrew Loke’s argument is a blend of the Kalam and Thomistic Version of the argument, and Loke even has his own syllogism. He makes the case that you don't NEED the arguments against the actual infinites for the argument to go through (because he utilizes another argument), but if the arguments against infinites are sound, they do the trick just as much as his Thomistic argumentation does in supporting the premise (which is premise 3, I think, in the syllogism below). The syllogism for Andrew Loke's cosmological argument is as follows:
1: There exist entities that: (i) are members of a causal series; and (ii) begin to exist.
2: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
3: If there is an entity that: (i) is a member of a causal series; and (ii) begins to exist, then there is an uncaused entity X.
4: There exists an X which is uncaused and beginningless (From 1, 2 and 3).
5: If X is uncaused and beginningless, nothing exists prior to it, and therefore it is a First Cause.
6: X is a First Cause (From 4 and 5).
Even if you still continue to use the classic Kalam Cosmological Argument (as I do), the material that Loke presents is invaluable. After all, his argument does have a lot of the Kalam's "DNA" so to speak. So even if you want to just use the Craigian version, what you'll learn in this book will be helpful. You'll become an even stronger defender even of the Craigian-Ghazali version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Loke presents some ways in which you can defend the arguments for a beginning of the universe, and the argument that those arguments can succeed regardless of whether the A theory or the B theory of time succeeds. Wait, let me rephrase that. In chapter 5 of Loke's book, which is the chapter that Loke defends the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause, Loke says that unlike William Lane Craig's version of the cosmological argument, his version does not require the A theory of time in order to be valid. It can work on either in A theory or a B theory of time. So, if the universe began to exist, and everything that begins to exist requires a cause, it needs a cause, a God-Like cause. No matter what theory of time you may think is true. I really really like this. As Loke himself says, having to defend the A Theory of time is no easy task. For me personally, any way I can defend my conclusions without having to do extra work is quite welcome. Maybe that's one reason why I'm a fan of The Minimal Facts argument for Jesus' resurrection over the New Testament Reliability Approach. I like being able to concede things and still be able to make my case. I won’t unpack his reasoning here. Get the book to find out for yourself how he pulls this off!
If you have reservations about the full blown ontology of God known as Thomism, don't worry about it. When I first got this book, I was afraid that I might not be able to agree with Loke because I reject full blown Thomism. I have issues with things like divine impassibility and the idea that "God has no potential. He's pure actuality.” and “God is identical to his attributes”. None of that comes into play in Loke's defense of his argument. The only thing Thomistic about the argument is that the way he defends premise 3 is that he utilizes Thomas Aquinas' insights about causation.
Regarding alternative cosmologies that try to avert the absolute beginning of physical reality, Loke deals with this in pretty much the way I do in my blog post on CerebralFaith.net titled "Eternal Universe Models: Going For The Philosophical Jugular". He shows that whatever scientific or mathematical support they may have in their favor or whatever scientific problems they may have, ultimately they need to be discarded because they are metaphysically impossible. They do not succeed at avoiding the problems of actual infinites, and his Thomistic argument that shows that an infinite causal chain is causally impotent because the causal powers of any step is zero unless acted upon by a prior cause. But in an infinite chain, there is no initial cause, so nothing could ever happen because no step is ever acted upon and therefore has a causal capacity of zero. So given any change in reality whatsoever there must be a first uncaused cause. Something may be mathematically possible in the mathematical realm, but still be metaphysically impossible. For example, the quadratic equation's answer may be either "-2" or "2" but no possible answer to "How many people carried the computer home" could be "-2 People". Negative 2 entities have zero causal powers. Thus, metaphysical considerations carry heavier weight than mathematical ones.
I think this is a great book.
Read
March 17, 2024Andrew Loke provides a new version of a temporal cosmological argument - possibly the best I've encountered.
I generally tend to prefer the Leibnizian 'contingency' formulation of the argument, as it doesn't require scientific arguments. However, one of the great strengths of Loke's approach is that he seeks to construct the argument in such a way that it will be unaffected by future advances in science. He does this by attempting to demonstrate that various alternatives (i.e. an infinite past, a quantum vacuum in which time acts as space) are actually metaphysically impossible, not simply unlikely according to modern science.
I think the best parts of this book are Loke's new arguments against a concrete infinite past and his argument against Graham Oppy's theory of an uncaused first event. Both of these sections were fresh, bold and insightful. Loke's focus on ensuring that his cosmological argument does not lose its sting depending on your view on contemporary physics or your theory of time also puts his version of the argument a cut above many others.
Weaker sections of the book included Loke's outlining of what characteristics this 'First Cause' must possess. Some of the conclusions drawn were not as well-defended as other conclusions in the book.
Overall, I think this book is still excellent and worth reading. I would recommend it to anyone seeking a compelling formulation of a temporal cosmological argument.
I generally tend to prefer the Leibnizian 'contingency' formulation of the argument, as it doesn't require scientific arguments. However, one of the great strengths of Loke's approach is that he seeks to construct the argument in such a way that it will be unaffected by future advances in science. He does this by attempting to demonstrate that various alternatives (i.e. an infinite past, a quantum vacuum in which time acts as space) are actually metaphysically impossible, not simply unlikely according to modern science.
I think the best parts of this book are Loke's new arguments against a concrete infinite past and his argument against Graham Oppy's theory of an uncaused first event. Both of these sections were fresh, bold and insightful. Loke's focus on ensuring that his cosmological argument does not lose its sting depending on your view on contemporary physics or your theory of time also puts his version of the argument a cut above many others.
Weaker sections of the book included Loke's outlining of what characteristics this 'First Cause' must possess. Some of the conclusions drawn were not as well-defended as other conclusions in the book.
Overall, I think this book is still excellent and worth reading. I would recommend it to anyone seeking a compelling formulation of a temporal cosmological argument.
October 4, 2017
"God and Ultimate Origins" lucidly compacts a gigantic breadth and depth of philosophical and scientific research on the concept and fact of causality and its importance for the cosmological argument. Students of philosophy will note that, in modern Western Philosophy, it was primarily Hume who first set torch to the common sense notion of causal relations. Kant, who claimed that Hume's writings woke him from his dogmatic slumbers, attempted a salvage of causality by devising an epistemic system that suggested and provided proofs for causality to just be a priori, which also means that it is how the human mind connects events subjectively in the form of a necessary connection. As such, this notion of subjective causal interpretation could be devastating to the cosmological argument. However, the fact that Kant needed causality to account for understanding causal relations seems to beg the question. So, while to some it may seem that Kant dealt a death blow to the cosmological argument, the objective necessity of and inescapability from causality makes the cosmological argument as realistic as any research in empirical science. Andrew Loke capitalizes on that. He first makes a sweeping survey of the most important issues related to the cosmological argument, particularly the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and observes how each objection has been or could be rebutted. Then, noticing that the KCA as well as the Thomistic argument do continue to invite more objections from theories of time and issues of actual infinities, he tries to combine the both by offering a novel argument which he illustrates with a simple analogy of a series of train cars drawn by an engine. Of course, he observes that there could be disanalogies between the illustration and the idea of causal series. However, he does his best to answer each and tries to explain why his argument has a greater advantage over the others. He also musters a number of scientific research findings to reinforce the a posteriori part of it and displays patient and arduous labor in freezing a wide ocean of research into this 200 page book. The book is a must read for any student of the philosophy of religion or Apologetics who wishes to be updated with the breadth of scholarship in arguments in favor of theism. We hope Springer can make the book available at a lower cost so that it can be buyable in countries where a fair price of a book should not be more than $12.
December 4, 2020
An excellent summary of the kalam argument and a concise treatment of critiques of the argument. The author answers critiques plus offers his own statement of the kalam argument that obviates a number of criticisms.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews