Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0

[Bucky Ball]

So...you think the universe began uncaused. How does that work exactly?

Every unexamined assumption that underlie that question (which is an example, itself, of the petitio principii fallacy), is rejected.
https://library.louisville.edu/ekstrom/c...ssumptions

Exactly.
Argument from intuition and argument from personal incredulity, as well as the violation Paleophyte TOLD him was wrong.
He *needs* an explanation, and he wants to justify his gap, therefore he thinks he's justified in making up something to satisfy the need, and fit in the gap.
Heuristic argument. It has ALREADY been explained to him why this is an invalid argument, and he is SO indoctrinated, he doesn't even get it.
It's almost like he's never actually argued anyone about anything before.

[Dancefortwo]

Oh goodie! We've never heard this one before! 0/10 for Originality

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. And that cause is God.

Point 4 is not demonstrated.

Until the first three are understood you cannot understand that one. Does not make sense to start there.

Point 3 is impossible as follows:

5. Causality requires both space and time.
6. Space and time began at the instant of the "Big Bang"
7. Therefor, there can be no causes "external" to the universe.
8. Therefor, the universe cannot have a cause.

This is the sort of flawed reasoning you get using cosmology that's a milennium out of date.

renumbered for reference

So your problem is with (1). So...you think the universe began uncaused. How does that work exactly?

It seems the form of your argument is also question begging because (5) 'causality requires space and time (and space and time is just another way of saying "the universe") is the same as (8). Either way, without any details, it is a long way of asserting that universes begin without a cause--not actually reasoning to universe beginning without a cause.

I will make a Post IN DEFENSE OF P1 in the next few hours

We understand the first three.  Your being abtuse and begging the question.  Here's your problem.

1. Everything that exists needs a cause.

2. Your god exists.

3. Your god needs a cause.

[brewerb]

To me, this constant discussion/argument/debate is an act of desperation for acknowledgement and validation from someone outside the belief.

Give it up Steve. I really don't care if you believe, but I'm never going to buy it. You, nor anyone, can argue/logic/rationalize god into existence. 

You might want to try a softer target, like scientologists.

[Bucky Ball]

To me, this constant discussion/argument/debate is an act of desperation for acknowledgement and validation from someone outside the belief.

Give it up Steve. I really don't care if you believe, but I'm never going to buy it. You, nor anyone, can argue/logic/rationalize god into existence. 

You might want to try a softer target, like scientologists.

He thinks he can get to his god by argumentation. 
He's the only theist on the planet that doesn't need faith.

[EvieTheAvocado]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

True.

2. The universe began to exist.

True.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

True.

4. And that cause is God.

Non-sequitur.

[EvieTheAvocado]

[...]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. And that cause is God.

Point 4 is not demonstrated.

Point 3 is impossible as follows:

P2 and P3 are true under one definition but false under another definition. It depends how we define "the universe". If "the universe" means "what happened after The Big Bang" then both P2 and P3 are true ... but if "the universe" means "the totality of all existing things within reality" then P2 and P3 are false. In both cases the conclusion is a non-sequitur.

[Bucky Ball]

It seems the form of your argument is also question begging because (5) 'causality requires space and time (and space and time is just another way of saying "the universe")

... is patently, obviously false.
Space-time are (some of) the dimensions/ properties of the universe. They are not "the universe" by any stretch.
So ... no Physics either.

[Glossophile]

Any atheist forum would is incomplete without a thread on the KCA. So, I'm doing my part.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) may be stated as a simple syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. And that cause is God.
[...]
The form of the syllogism is inductive*. As an inductive argument, the premises do not have to be certain (that would be a deductive argument). The highly likely premises make the conclusion highly likely. Every premise has pages and pages of discussion to back it up so I don't want anyone to feel that it's just a list of bald assertions. I have seen several claim the Natural Theology arguments are all fallacious. So, how about it? What are the problems of the KCA?  

Oh, dear God (pun intended)!  Please don't tell me this is your response to my challenge in the thread "On the Burden of Proof and Implicit vs. Explicit Agnosticism"!  You made it seem like, if your argument itself wasn't new, you were at least going to try to put an interesting enough spin on it.  You're not even trying here!

I'll tackle this a bit later (maybe this evening).  Right now, I'm going to take a nap, 'cause the canker sore from Hell wouldn't let me sleep last night.  Plus, I'm at a Disney World resort right now, and I also want to spend a few hours at Hollywood Studios and EPCOT before I dive down this trite rabbit hole.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Even WL Craig recognized the stupidity of this argument and the problem that it presents ... so much so, that he went to all the trouble to invent 
"non-tensed time", to satisfy the objection Paleophyte raised.

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what flavour of apologist drivel is "non-tensed time"?

A time vs B time.  God is outside of time (B time). Bloc Universe. Leibnez's metaphysics (monads) led him to discussing the nature of time and logical relations of events in a timeless Universe.  Monadology is a metaphysical whimsy that is as dead as a door nail today, even for apologists.

[SteveII]

IN DEFENSE OF PREMISE 1

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Objections so far:

Paleophyte (post #4) - asserts that the universe began uncaused
Unfogged (post #7) - Category error inside/outside universe
Mathilda (post #24) - Equivocation on 'cause'

It seems that several of you accept P1.

What do we mean by 'cause'. It is a metaphysical concept (not scientific). Here is the intro paragraph in Wikipedia:

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past (more precise: none lie in its future). An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

That's the definition we will use for any point so we can avoid equivocating (Mathilda).

The reasons people generally think that everything that begins to exists has a cause is:

A. Something cannot come from nothing.
B. If something can came from nothing, why don't things pop into existence all the time? Why don't objects just appear? Why is it that only universes appear from nothing? What property of 'nothing' favors universes and not, say, ham sandwiches. That's a rhetorical question because 'nothing' cannot have properties.
C. Common sense and science has constantly verified and never falsified this principle. This metaphysical concept is taken to be as a true feature of reality and is the cornerstone of the philosophy of science that this is how reality works.

@unfogged - Two things.

i. quantum particles do not form uncaused. They are indeterminate, but we know the quantum energy field produced them.
ii. I don't think what you are describing is a category error--unless you are positing there are two kids of causes. It is more of a charge of composition fallacy: What is true of the universe in parts may not be true of the universe as a whole. But in (C ) above we appeal to inductive reasoning--we are drawing an inductive inference about reality from a sample of reality. A probablistic conclusion that this is how reality works. This is exactly the same principle that undergirds ALL of science.

SO...Are A, B, and C more likely true that not? I think that is a definite yes. So, P1 seems to be way more probably true than false.

[Bucky Ball]

IN DEFENSE OF PREMISE 1

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Objections so far:

Paleophyte (post #4) - asserts that the universe began uncaused
Unfogged (post #7) - Category error inside/outside universe
Mathilda (post #24) - Equivocation on 'cause'

False.
Dishonest characterization.
Paleophyte said no such thing.
There is no evidence at this point that the universe "began" ... and he has none.
There is insufficient knowledge of reality to say ANYTHING at this point, either about a beginning, or causes in general.
Unfogged argument also is mischaracterized and not answered. "Inside/outside" AND implied "before/after" have not been answered.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I'd simply say "ex nihilo nihil fit" and cite Parmenides to point out that the idea that something can come from nothing is absurd. Both philosophers and fellow physics rightly criticized Lawrence Krauss for saying otherwise. The "nothing" that Krauss speaks of isn't actually nothing.

But, I mean, that's an absolutely logical truth. Absolutely anything coming from absolutely nothing is logically incoherent.

Dean Rickles ABSOLUTELY NAILS IT here:



And "Why this universe?" is indeed a different question to "Why is there anything at all?".

The vital point is that there was always something ... and there's no reason to think that anything is God.

@SteveII I don't think we have to appeal to inductive reasoning to say that something doesn't come from nothing ... I think it's logically impossible for absolutely anything to come out of absolutely nothing. Dean Rickles makes that quite clear. Existence as a whole is necessary ... the idea of absolutely nothing existing involves the notion of the existence of nonexistence ... which is logically impossible. Nonexistence cannot exist. And if nonexistence cannot exist then there literally is no nonexistence for existence to come out of.

[Bucky Ball]

I'd simply say "ex nihilo nihil fit" and cite Parmenides to point out that the idea that something can come from nothing is absurd. Both philosophers and fellow physics rightly criticized Lawrence Krauss for saying otherwise. The "nothing" that Krauss speaks of isn't actually nothing.

But, I mean, that's an absolutely logical truth. Absolutely anything coming from absolutely nothing is logically incoherent.

Dean Rickles ABSOLUTELY NAILS IT here:



And "Why this universe?" is indeed a different question to "Why is there anything at all?".

The vital point is that there was always something ... and there's no reason to think that anything is God.

Nope.
"Always something" is a temporal reference which makes sense ONLY in a temporal environment.
Without space-time in place the words are meaningless.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I don't think what you are describing is a category error--unless you are positing there are two kids of causes. It is more of a charge of composition fallacy: What is true of the universe in parts may not be true of the universe as a whole. But in (C ) above we appeal to inductive reasoning--we are drawing an inductive inference about reality from a sample of reality. A probablistic conclusion that this is how reality works. This is exactly the same principle that undergirds ALL of science.

Unfogged was saying that every single example of something "beginning to exist" actually involves of one thing changing form from one thing to another ... rather than something beginning to exist out of nothing.

I'm sure you do mean it in that sense, though. Something cannot come from nothing. Indeed. The idea would then be that God was the first cause and the second cause came out of him rather than popping out of nothing.

I don't see any equivocation or any sort of fallacy going on if you don't mean ex nihlo. And your whole point seems to be that something CANNOT be ex nihlo. So "begins to exist" must simply refer to the fact that things come out of other things and all causes have effects. That much is sound.

2 and 3 can be interpreted in two different ways ... so an equivocation may or may not be going on there.

But 4 is a non-sequitur regardless.

I'd say that 1 must be sound unless we are to say that there's ultimately only one thing in the universe and that all change is an illusion. When we talk about something beginning to exist or coming out of existence we are normally talking about forms rather than saying that reality is literally coming and going away.


Just like how when we say that a dead person no longer exists we don't mean that their whole mind and body has disappeared into non-existence ... we mean that their heart and brain are no longer working properly. They no longer exist in the form that they were in. And every person begins to exist when they are born because the change of form from sperm and egg to a person is what is meant by their coming into existence. When we say that a person begins to exist when they're born we don't mean that they pop into existence, obviously. All existence being 'created' or 'destroyed' isn't absolute and merely refers to causation and change of forms.

[Mathilda]

What do we mean by 'cause'. It is a metaphysical concept (not scientific). Here is the intro paragraph in Wikipedia:

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past (more precise: none lie in its future). An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

That's the definition we will use for any point so we can avoid equivocating (Mathilda).

No it doesn't avoid equivocation. The very concept of causality assumes discrete atomic events whereas what actually happens in practice are different gradients of energy moving through matter.

Take firing a gun for example. You could say that I caused the gun to fire, but what really happens is that signals from my brain travel down nerves, contracting my finger muscles which pulls the trigger, releasing pressure on a metal hammer which strikes the gunpowder with such force that it heats up enough to ignite, resulting in a build up of pressure inside the barrel which accelerates the bullet over time out of the chamber. This is important because at what stage did the process begin?

Also glossing over this by talking about discrete events ignores the possibility that there may be different reasons that the bullet was fired. e.g. by accident.


(Apologies to gun nuts who probably know in far more detail the mechanics of modern guns)

[EvieTheAvocado]

Nope.
"Always something" is a temporal reference which makes sense ONLY in a temporal environment.
Without space-time in place the words are meaningless.

That's irrelevant (I don't understand why you get off, so much, on stating irrelevant truths that don't actually address my point). Nonexistence cannot exist regardless of whether we're talking about temporal or non-temporal reality.

"All existing things that have ever existed" is indeed temporal but it only refers to temporal reality.

It indeed makes no sense to talk of anything that happened "Before time".

Because "Before" is a temporal concept as well.

This doesn't touch the fact that nonexistence cannot exist.

Dean did a video on time as well:



The Ancient Greek philosopher Parmenidies discovered, merely out of pure logic, that reality was quite different to our temporal notion of it thousands of years before the physicists confirmed it by refining their notion of time after empirical study. I myself also understood that from a young age long before I knew anything about physics and space-time.

I'm taking you off my Ignore List now because I've decided that it's sometimes worth correcting your incorrect (and/or irrelevant) nonsense, at least for now.

I do still think that it's a waste of time trying to help you see my point but, of course, it's important for me to remember that others may be able to see my point and your illogical objections to my logical posts won't go along uncontested ... and those who can see sense may be able to benefit from my responses to you when they would otherwise buy into your uncontested nonsense and/or irrelevance.

[Bucky Ball]

I don't think what you are describing is a category error--unless you are positing there are two kids of causes. It is more of a charge of composition fallacy: What is true of the universe in parts may not be true of the universe as a whole. But in (C ) above we appeal to inductive reasoning--we are drawing an inductive inference about reality from a sample of reality. A probablistic conclusion that this is how reality works. This is exactly the same principle that undergirds ALL of science.

His sample size for "reality" is 5 % of one universe. 95 % of this universe is unknown (Dark Energy and Dark Matter).
Fail.
Virtual particles are in fact "popping into and out of existence" all the time .... uncaused.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...icles-rea/

[EvieTheAvocado]

What do we mean by 'cause'. It is a metaphysical concept (not scientific). Here is the intro paragraph in Wikipedia:

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past (more precise: none lie in its future). An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

That's the definition we will use for any point so we can avoid equivocating (Mathilda).

No it doesn't avoid equivocation. The very concept of causality assumes discrete atomic events whereas what actually happens in practice are different gradients of energy moving through matter.

I think that SteveII is using the metaphysical definition of causality rather than the scientific definition of causality, though, so if others are responding like he is using the scientific definition then that is indeed an equivocation.

[Bucky Ball]

Where did Causality come from ?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Special pleading and a non sequitur. Next.

[unfogged]

IN DEFENSE OF PREMISE 1

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Objections so far:

Paleophyte (post #4) - asserts that the universe began uncaused
Unfogged (post #7) - Category error inside/outside universe

That was one objection out of many.

Mathilda (post #24) - Equivocation on 'cause'

It seems that several of you accept P1.

What do we mean by 'cause'. It is a metaphysical concept (not scientific). Here is the intro paragraph in Wikipedia:

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past (more precise: none lie in its future). An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

The definition of 'cause' is not the main issue at this point. Your P1 and P2 both reference "begins to exist" and that phrase needs to be clarified. Is that ex-nihilo or ex-materia?

Either way the argument fails but the specific mode of failure depends on the exact claim.

[SteveII]

@SteveII I don't think we have to appeal to inductive reasoning to say that something doesn't come from nothing ... I think it's logically impossible for absolutely anything to come out of absolutely nothing. Dean Rickles makes that quite clear. Existence as a whole is necessary ... the idea of absolutely nothing existing involves the notion of the existence of nonexistence ... which is logically impossible. Nonexistence cannot exist. And if nonexistence cannot exist then there literally is no nonexistence for existence to come out of.

I like that video series. I didn't watch it today, but I remember that conversation.

I mentioned inductive reasoning to quash the possible composition fallacy charge.

I agree: nonexistence cannot exist. I think God always existed (part of the definition). So while the universe was created from no material thing, it does not signify existence coming into being. Also, if I remember correctly, Rickles says the universe is obviously a contingent object somewhere in there.

Did I get your point or do I have to listen to the video again?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think God always existed (part of the definition).

Special pleading. You're violating your own premise with this definition you've chosen.

When your beliefs require you to do violence to reason, then you should re-examine them ... but you won't.

That's why these discussions are as useful as a pinholed condom.

[EvieTheAvocado]

@SteveII

You got my point. We merely disagree on whether God has to be the first cause, it seems. So I was quite right to say "true" for the first three premises.

I thought that you would have seen the universe as contingent object, as well, rather than the whole of reality (after all, if there's a multiverse then the universe is just one of many so absolutely must be contingent on something greater) ... but I thought I should point out to @Paleophyte that P2 and P3 could either both be true or both be false depending on one's definition of "the universe". If "the universe" means "the totality of all existing things within reality" then the universe can't come into existence ... but neither of us was using it that way.

I just don't see how the conclusion follows. I think that something has always existed (within temporal reality) and there was never any nonexistence ... but I don't see why God has to get involved. The conclusion is yet to be demonstrated, as far as I'm concerned. That's the problem that I have with the argument ... it doesn't seem to demonstrate anything at all. It just presents 3 perfectly sound premises and then jumps to an irrelevant conclusion.

WLC tries to expand on it by saying that the first cause has to have certain elements such as being a personal cause with agency and stuff ... and he says that God would have had to be there at the beginning at the same time as the universe because God is everywhere at once ... and he was there to create it (but that makes a bastardization of the concept of causality as far as I'm concerned) ... but he doesn't justify any of that. Why not cut out the middle man and just say that there was something before the universe but there's no reason why God would have to get involved? WLC doesn't demonstrate or explain why the first cause has to be personal, have agency, or how it could be there at the same time as the second cause to create it (which is, again, a bastardization of the concept of causality) ... he doesn't demonstrate nay of those things.

So it seems, so far, as far as I'm concerned, that even when theists expand on the Kalam argument they still just add on more non-sequiturs that are yet to be demonstrated on top of a few perfectly sound premises ... but, unfortunately for the theists, combining sense with nonsense doesn't equate to truth.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I think God always existed (part of the definition).

Special pleading. [...]

Yeah, and if the argument's task is to demonstrate that God existed then merely defining the first cause as having the characteristics of God is just begging the question, as well. Demonstrating such Godlike characteristics that are supposedly necessary is what is supposed to be being demonstrated. To fail to demonstrate them is just to, covertly and implicitly, assume the truth of the conclusion within the first premise.