Kalam Cosmological Argument: Modern Science confirms an Ancient Christian Truth.

[Xavier]

So let's discuss the Kalam and the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre. Today, it is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology. It confirms the traditional Judeo-Christian (monotheistic) model of creatio ex nihilo or creation from nothing, because it postulates an absolute beginning of the Universe: "“The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.” https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astro...erse-begin

The scientific Truth of the Big Bang is used in Premise 2 of the Kalam.

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. But, the Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. Thus, the Universe has a Cause.

A corollary, 4: If the Universe has a Cause, then a First Cause of the entire Universe exists outside space and time that is extremely Powerful and caused the Universe to begin to exist.

Premise 2, as noted above, has empirical and scientific confirmation, not only in the BBT, but also in the BGV Theorem. Premise 1 meanwhile is a basic Truth of philosophy and logic which we see confirmed over and over in reality. We see that planets, trees, houses and even human beings etc don't come into existence without a cause but rather having a cause. Thus, premise 1 and premise 2 are confirmed, and premise 3 or the conclusion logically follows from them. How would Atheists here respond?

God Bless.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So let's discuss the Kalam and the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre. Today, it is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology. It confirms the traditional Judeo-Christian (monotheistic) model of creatio ex nihilo or creation from nothing, because it postulates an absolute beginning of the Universe: "“The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.” https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astro...erse-begin

The scientific Truth of the Big Bang is used in Premise 2 of the Kalam.

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. But, the Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. Thus, the Universe has a Cause.

A corollary, 4: If the Universe has a Cause, then a First Cause of the entire Universe exists outside space and time that is extremely Powerful and caused the Universe to begin to exist.

Premise 2, as noted above, has empirical and scientific confirmation, not only in the BBT, but also in the BGV Theorem. Premise 1 meanwhile is a basic Truth of philosophy and logic which we see confirmed over and over in reality. We see that planets, trees, houses and even human beings etc don't come into existence without a cause but rather having a cause. Thus, premise 1 and premise 2 are confirmed, and premise 3 or the conclusion logically follows from them. How would Atheists here respond?

God Bless.

Oh, this bullshit again. Pretending to know what you don't know is so goddamned tired.

[epronovost]

The Big Bang theory doesn't posit creation ex nihilo. It posit that the universe was at one point infinitely dense and infinitely hot and expanded from that infinitely dense and infinitely hot singularity. It doesn't posit that "everything just spontaneously appeared" like creation ex nihilo would imply.

Also to your question as to how an atheist would respond to your observation I would say it would be an error in logic to apply the rules and deduction made within a system to the system itself. Matter and energy transformation within the universe can be observed to be causal relationships (one thing causing another), but that doesn't transfer to the system itself. It would be akin to say that everything that happens in a hockey game is regulated by the rules of the hockey games thus, when the rules where designed the team who scored the most goal won and got their rules accepted. It doesn't really make sense.

[Szuchow]

Big Bang isn't how the universe began. Per Wki:
The Big Bang is a physical theory that describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature

You got first premise wrong so rest of your mumbo jumbo isn't worth much.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If this god didn't begin to exist, how does it exist at all?

And if it did begin to exist, what caused it?

[Minimalist]

I knew I wasn't going to like this new sock puppet of someone even a little bit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I knew I wasn't going to like this new sock puppet of someone even a little bit.

Pretty sure I've seen him at AF.org. Subpar dipshit, 2/10 max.

[Deesse23]

Hey Nishant

Care to tell us what you think of Jews and trans people?

[Astreja]

The scientific Truth of the Big Bang is used in Premise 2 of the Kalam.

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. But, the Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. Thus, the Universe has a Cause.

In my opinion, the mostly likely cause of the current universe is eternally-existing matter/energy, totally mechanistic and without sentience, behaving in consistent ways according to its physical structure.

If the Big Bang theory is correct about the universe expanding from a dense singularity, that singularity was made of something that was already there (the aforementioned matter/energy, in a highly compressed state).

If you try to insert a god into point #3 as the alleged Cause, you must demonstrate the existence of the god separately; you cannot just assume it.  A sentient being is many, many orders of magnitude more complex than a quantum fluctuation or a quark or an electron, and requires a correspondingly more detailed explanation as to how it got there.

[airportkid]

... requires a correspondingly more detailed explanation as to how it got there.

Uber from the airport, just like everyone else.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey Nishant

Care to tell us what you think of Jews and trans people?

What about that supermarket that asked him to leave his backpack at the counter? I'd looooove to hear more about that.

[Edible crust]

So let's discuss the Kalam and the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre. Today, it is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology. It confirms the traditional Judeo-Christian (monotheistic) model of creatio ex nihilo or creation from nothing, because it postulates an absolute beginning of the Universe: "“The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.” https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astro...erse-begin

The scientific Truth of the Big Bang is used in Premise 2 of the Kalam.

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. But, the Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. Thus, the Universe has a Cause.

A corollary, 4: If the Universe has a Cause, then a First Cause of the entire Universe exists outside space and time that is extremely Powerful and caused the Universe to begin to exist.

Premise 2, as noted above, has empirical and scientific confirmation, not only in the BBT, but also in the BGV Theorem. Premise 1 meanwhile is a basic Truth of philosophy and logic which we see confirmed over and over in reality. We see that planets, trees, houses and even human beings etc don't come into existence without a cause but rather having a cause. Thus, premise 1 and premise 2 are confirmed, and premise 3 or the conclusion logically follows from them. How would Atheists here respond?

God Bless.

I'd respond by asking why any of that has anything to do with Christianity or any other religion.
So what if there was a first cause? Nothing so far has convinced me that your god or anyone else's was responsible.

[Reltzik]

So let's discuss the Kalam and the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre. Today, it is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology. It confirms the traditional Judeo-Christian (monotheistic) model of creatio ex nihilo or creation from nothing, because it postulates an absolute beginning of the Universe: "“The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.” https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astro...erse-begin

The scientific Truth of the Big Bang is used in Premise 2 of the Kalam.

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. But, the Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. Thus, the Universe has a Cause.

A corollary, 4: If the Universe has a Cause, then a First Cause of the entire Universe exists outside space and time that is extremely Powerful and caused the Universe to begin to exist.

Premise 2, as noted above, has empirical and scientific confirmation, not only in the BBT, but also in the BGV Theorem. Premise 1 meanwhile is a basic Truth of philosophy and logic which we see confirmed over and over in reality. We see that planets, trees, houses and even human beings etc don't come into existence without a cause but rather having a cause. Thus, premise 1 and premise 2 are confirmed, and premise 3 or the conclusion logically follows from them. How would Atheists here respond?

God Bless.

This old chestnut again.

... er, I mean, wow, I have never seen that argument before, it certainly isn't something that has been repeated to me ad nauseam by people who've decided it's the most wonderful proof in the world after giving it only the tiniest shred of critical examination, truly this revolutionizes the whole God debate and leaves me no choice but to convert!

...

/s

I'll proceed assuming that by "cause" you are referring to Aristotle's efficient cause, rather than, say, something like a final cause.  ie, you're talking about something that causes X to happen, rather than another concept of "cause" like the purpose for which that something makes X happen.

The first premise is true in many instances but it is not universal, the second premise is plausible enough but not wholly demonstrated, the terminology of the entire argument is ill-defined for its subject matter, your corollary is speculative and vague, and nothing about the conclusion is particularly relevant to atheism one way or the other.

First premise:  You offer several examples of things that don't come into existence without a cause, but it's far from an exhaustive list of things that come into existence and you're reasoning from the specific to the general.  A single counterexample is enough to defeat it, and my favorite go-to as a counterexample is radioactive decay.  When you have an unstable isotope, the instability will eventually resolve by emitting a particle (or ray, the difference between the two gets a bit fuzzy).  The instability of the atom creates a situation in which the particle can radiate, but it doesn't actually cause the radiation.  It appears that the radiation has no cause whatsoever.  It just happens randomly (with an exponential probability distribution function), and in theory it might never happen.  An alpha particle or beta particle or gamma ray or whatever can begin to exist in this manner with no cause whatsoever.

But even if I could find no counterexample, a list of things which we can see have property X does not prove that this additional item, which we cannot check to see if it has property X, must indeed have property X.  That sort of extrapolation might be a strong inference to make in some cases, but it is far from a complete proof.  In this case it's not a strong inference at all.

Second premise:  What we have in the Big Bang is the beginning of the observable universe, and that might be because the universe itself did just poof into existence, or it might instead be because of our limited ability to observe whatever preceded the Big Bang.  There are several cosmological models in which the universe existed in some other form prior to our existing space-time, along with several models in which it did not.  There is, as yet, no method of identifying which of these models is correct, and we'd likely need to figure out a workable theory of quantum gravity in order to have a hope of doing so.

Terminology:  Just in case you're looking at the phrase "prior to our existing space-time" and thinking it looks fishy, yeah, it definitely does.  That's because our intuitive concepts of causality are linked to time, with cause preceding effect.  If the Big Bang is the beginning of time (and, under relativity, if it was the beginning of space it was also the beginning of time because the two are linked), then there could have been nothing before it because there is no such thing as "before it".  That's what the beginning of time would mean.  This is why Premise 1 wouldn't even be a strong inference in this case.  With regard to causality, the origin of time itself is such an extreme outlier that examples like trees and houses cannot be taken as similar enough to it as to form the basis for a legitimate analogy.  Our colloquial terminology surrounding things like origins or cause and effect serves us well enough in day-to-day situations, but it breaks down when we attempt to apply it to really extreme cases like the beginning of time itself.

Corollary:  And speaking of imprecise... what does "powerful" even mean in this context?  Authoritarian power makes no sense here.  Power in the sense of physics?  In physics, power is simply the rate with respect to time that energy is applied or transferred.  One model of the universe has it displaying a net zero energy, with some forms of energy being positive numbers and others being negative, and if the origin of the universe is taken to be an instantaneous event, the amount of power required to cause it would be... zero divided by zero.  That's an indeterminate form which can be any number whatsoever, no matter how high or low, or even no number at all.  If instead of the physics definition of power you mean something like the ability to set immense things in motion... well, I guess by that definition butterflies are powerful, if they can set hurricanes into motion.  But I get the sense you're trying to get us to think of something as powerful in a different sense than this way in which butterflies are powerful.

Also, outside the universe?  What does that mean?  Outside is a spacial concept, which makes as much sense when something is excluded by space as "before" makes when time doesn't exist.  (Also, "when" doesn't make much sense when time doesn't exist... oops, did it again.  See what I mean about terminology?)  "Outside" also gets used routinely, in a figurative sense, for things like set theory or the like, so it's not necessarily incoherent, but which application of the word you are using here is not at all clear.

Conclusion:  But okay, none of those objections actually rules out the possibility of the universe having a cause, nor even mounts a case against it.  (They do make a strong case against the Kalam Cosmological Argument being a good proof of the universe having a cause, though.)  So...let's say the universe had a cause.  I think this is plausible, even likely, given the current science on the subject.

So what?

There's no reason in principle that such a cause must be a god, and there's also no reason why in principle a god couldn't exist without the universe having been caused by something.  The two concepts (cause of universe and the existence of one or more gods) are not linked.  Some particular mythologies attempt to link them by attributing the origin to gods, but generally speaking atheism and theism both are no more or less plausible with a cause to the universe than they are without one.  The universe having a cause seems completely irrelevant to the theism/atheism debate.

...

Okay, so if the conclusion is irrelevant, why waste all that time dissecting the rest of the argument?  Because I think it illustrates something about the field of religious apologetics in general: sloppiness.  Most religious apologetics are at least as sloppy as Kalam... and I'd say most are worse.  They keep their definitions fuzzy, rely on intuition far outside the scope of subjects where intuition can be considered reliable, employ fallacious logic or present inference as deduction, and try to trick you into thinking that they have proven something other than what they've actually (supposedly) proven.

I've got this phrase I've been workshopping in my head for a while now:  "Apologists work in Sales and skeptics work in Quality Control."

In Sales, you try to put as much polish and spin and good shine on your product.  Hype it up, show it in its best light, focus on its every strength, and try to get people to buy it by hook or by crook.  The actual quality of the product doesn't matter, so long as you can make the sale.  Honesty is optional, and often it's detrimental to closing the deal.

In Quality Control, you aren't trying to show that the product is good, you're trying to find ways that it isn't.  You view it in its worst light and from its worst angle.  You try to smash it to bits over and over again, so that you catalogue all the ways you can break it with brute force.  You take it apart, figure out how it's supposed to work, and use that knowledge to think of a million ways you can break it with finesse.  You focus on its every flaw.  Making the sale is optional, but honesty is required, because if you're not honest about the product's flaws then the product will never improve.  It isn't until you get the product so perfect that it holds up to your every test that you're happy to see it get out on the market.

Religious apologetics show every sign of having a sales guy filling in for a proper quality control team.  They've not been put through a critical and honest examination by the people peddling them, and so their quality remains poor.  The apologists rarely even notice that the product is flawed.  When noticed, faults are rarely, if ever, corrected by anything more than papering over the cracks and hoping the buyer doesn't notice.  The apologist's mindset is what permits the product being this bad... and it's what causes the product to be this bad.

Of course, with a company producing a product for sale, the QC guy is dependent on the revenue the sales guy brings in if he wants to get a paycheck at the end of the month.  No such common interest exists with religious apologetics.  That's where the metaphor breaks down.

[SYZ]

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.[/size]
2. But, the Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. Thus, the Universe has a Cause...

   Okay, I'll play your silly game,

Premise 1.  Maybe nothing ever begins, and therefore needs no cause.

Premise 2.  There is no available empirical evidence that the Universe ever began.

Premise 3.  Therefore, the Universe has always existed.

    QED

[LastPoet]

The kalaam argument is so flawed.

1. What evidence you have that what caused the big bang is a sentient being, a god or a particular god, even?

2. According to your logic, who or what created said god?

3. What happened to that old human trait, humbling it might be and the drive of science that is simply to say "i dont know"?

[brewerb]

So let's discuss the Kalam and the Big Bang.

The scientific Truth of the Big Bang is used in Premise 2 of the Kalam.

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. But, the Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. Thus, the Universe has a Cause.

A corollary, 4: If the Universe has a Cause, then a First Cause of the entire Universe exists outside space and time that is extremely Powerful and caused the Universe to begin to exist.

[adey67]

So let's discuss the Kalam and the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre. Today, it is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology. It confirms the traditional Judeo-Christian (monotheistic) model of creatio ex nihilo or creation from nothing, because it postulates an absolute beginning of the Universe: "“The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.” https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astro...erse-begin

The scientific Truth of the Big Bang is used in Premise 2 of the Kalam.

1. Now, what BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. But, the Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. Thus, the Universe has a Cause.

A corollary, 4: If the Universe has a Cause, then a First Cause of the entire Universe exists outside space and time that is extremely Powerful and caused the Universe to begin to exist.

Premise 2, as noted above, has empirical and scientific confirmation, not only in the BBT, but also in the BGV Theorem. Premise 1 meanwhile is a basic Truth of philosophy and logic which we see confirmed over and over in reality. We see that planets, trees, houses and even human beings etc don't come into existence without a cause but rather having a cause. Thus, premise 1 and premise 2 are confirmed, and premise 3 or the conclusion logically follows from them. How would Atheists here respond?

God Bless.

Please excuse me while I facepalm myself to death.

[no one]

Pissant is several metric fuck tons of stupid.

This total clown could not think its way out of a wet paper bag.

[brewerb]

We have the next parasite infestation. I imagine it will be much like scabies.

[CapriMark1]

To the OP:

Did you research this before you posted?  If not, why not?  If so, what did you find?

Side Note:  I find the Kalam argument interesting because it flies in the face of human experience - that is, no one has ever seen something poof into existence, yet that's the premise of the argument.

[jerry mcmasters]

"Everything has a cause, except this thing over here which I say doesn't have a cause."

[Edible crust]

To my mind the origin of everything is an impossible question with no answer. We can form an opinion based upon our own life experience but at the end of the day none of us know anything about it.

Fuck knows is as good of an answer as god did it.

[Minimalist]

A better answer, actually.

[AutisticWill]

So let's discuss the Kalam and the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre. Today, it is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology. It confirms the traditional Judeo-Christian (monotheistic) model of creatio ex nihilo or creation from nothing, because it postulates an absolute beginning of the Universe: "“The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery.” https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astro...erse-begin

...

Never get your scientific information from a Pop-page aimed at kids!

Try an advanced text-book [not introductory!] -- if you don't understand what you're reading, GOOD: you're in the process of learning something! Read definitions out of the dictionaries/encyclopedias written by scientists for students -- not the general public! Don't trust Oxford English, or American Heritage Dictionary, to get the definitions of technical jargon correct!

Here, I'll start you off with something you'll be sure to love:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...4hnojoCR4m

I'll apologize in advance for the playlist being out of order; this playlist can be listened to or watched, but you might want to check out the screen when, at times, they say something very complicated -- odds are they have a visual metaphor [not literal truth!] on screen to help you out.

Since you like creation events as your explanation of the world, I'm gonna go ahead and assume you don't know much about the science of biology; well, I'm here to help, or rather, this guy is:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...ENxI_NLaFB
and also:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...WFHGpzF618

Watching those in either order should be fine. But wait! Here's an Appendix:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...f084WhvfXU

And by the waaaaay, you would be well off to better come to grips with how the bible and reality intersect:
Start with this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...5oxY5r6BzP
Then this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...grEGqFt8oJ
Round it all off with this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...gvQDIfWo_Y

Those video playlists can be listened to as well.

You have a lot of research ahead of you -- that's just the introduction!

[Edible crust]

A better answer, actually.

Yeah but we have the remnants of ancient superstition alive and well. I'm being inclusive.