The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[X-Ray]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) derives its name from the Arabic word kalam, which, in medieval times, designated theology or philosophical theism. It is so named because kalam philosophers largely developed the idea of the impossibility of infinite regress.

 

The basic outline of the KCA:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

The argument has two sub arguments attached to the second premise that are used to prove the finitude of the past. So the argument in its expanded form is:

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

 

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.

2.12) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

2.13) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

 

2.2) Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.

2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.

2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

 

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

----------------------------------

 

Let’s explore the argument.

 

1) Whatever Begins to Exist Has a Cause

This first principle is an intuitive metaphysical principle. A rational human being would not deny the principle that something cannot come from nothing. It is axiomatic really, one of the fundaments of reality. Suppose, for a moment, that you are walking down the street and you see something completely unknown to you – such as a strange watch or a strange cigarette container. The underlying assumption here is that it came from somewhere. You would not hold the absurd notion that it has no cause, that there is no explanation for its existence as if it just appeared there spontaneously out of nothing. Also, consider these questions: What is the likelihood that, say, a semi truck will just come into existence uncaused, right here, right now, in my house, and run me over? And what is the likelihood that a cup of my favorite German lager will just happen to come into existence out of nothing by spontaneously appearing next to me on my computer desk? Very unlikely indeed. Thus it is intuitively obvious that everything that we encounter has a cause. Why would the universe be any different? It is a thing, and as the KCA shows, it had a beginning. Therefore, it must have a cause. If there were absolutely nothing before the universe, including no space, no time, no God, how could it possibly have come into existence?

 

2) The Universe Began to Exist

If we agree that whatever begins to exist has a cause, then let us explore the question of the universe coming into existence before we explore the question of causation.

 

 

2.1) The Argument Based on the Impossibility of an Actual Infinite

 

2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.

We all basically know what an infinite is from math class, but few people actually sit down and really contemplate the meaning of the word. Few people contemplate what infinity is in actual form and the profound implications thereof.

 

Right now you may be asking yourself, what is an actual infinite? An actual infinite is something that is in infinite form, it is a ‘whole infinite,’ if you will. This is differentiated from a potential infinite which is something that is increasing towards infinity, but is not infinity. In concrete, or tangible, terms, an infinite cannot exist. Since there are no actual infinites, and indeed an actual infinite is impossible, it can be a difficult idea to explain. A thought experiment, called the Paradox of Herbert’s Hotel, created by the German mathematician David Hilbert is often used to illustrate the absurdities that entail an actual infinite. In a normal hotel, with a finite number of rooms, when the rooms are all occupied a potential guest has to be turned away as there is no vacancy, but let’s look at what happens in Herbert’s Hotel with its infinite number of rooms. Herbert’s Hotel, like I said, has an infinite number of rooms and let’s suppose that each room is occupied, thus the hotel, in theory, has no vacancy, right? But if a new potential guest comes asking for a room the proprietor of this bizarre establishment is happy to oblige. In order to accommodate the guest he just moves the guest in room number 1 to room number 2 and the guest in room number 2 to room number 3 and so on and so on. This creates a vacancy in room number one, thereby accommodating the new guest. Before the new guest arrived, there were already an infinite number of guests, so how many guests are there now that a new guest has arrived? A mathematician would tell you that there are no more guests now than there were before, that there is still an infinite. How can this be if one more guest was added to the roster? Suppose an infinite number of new guests arrived and the owner freed up rooms in the same manner as described above in order to accommodate them. How many would there be then? So you see this is paradoxical. It is also impossible that a hotel can have vacancies and not have vacancies at the same time, but this would be the case if a room from the infinite amount of rooms were freed up.

 

2.12) An Infinite Temporal Regress of Events is an Actual Infinite.

From Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, we know that space and time are actually one thing and cannot be divorced from one another. Therefore, applying the principle behind Herbert’s Hotel to our discussion of actual infinite regress, we find that it is impossible to have an infinite number of past events. Suppose we assign a real number to each past event. Then, if we assume that the past is infinite, every number would be used up. There would not be a free number in which to assign to the present moment as it passes into the past. But suppose, like in Herbert’s Hotel we reassign the numbers and move them all up one. We reassign the number 2 to event 1, the number 3 to event 2, and so on. We have thus freed up number 1 to be assigned to the present. But how can this be? It is impossible, for if the past is infinite, then this creates a situation in which there is and is not a free number in our infinite collection of events. This is indeed a contradiction. And if that is not complicated enough, we would also have to deal with the fact that time is ongoing. We would constantly have to reassign numbers and bump each number up one. The logical contradictions entailed by this are (pun intended) endless.

 

2.13) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

If it is true that an actual infinite cannot exist and that an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite, then it logically follows that an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

 

In order to really send this idea home that an actual infinite cannot exist, let’s take a look at a real application of this: travel at the speed of light. Most of us know, or at least have heard, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but what you might not know is why. Well, from Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2 we know that energy and mass are actually different manifestations of the same thing. Mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass. So the reason why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is because when something (let’s say a spaceship) approaches light speed it becomes more massive, that is, the energy that is being used to propel the spaceship gets converted into mass. And as we approach the speed of light the conversion of energy to mass becomes exponential and increases towards infinity. As a spaceship becomes more massive it becomes more difficult to accelerate and thus requires a greater amount of energy in order to propel it. As a result, in order to travel at the speed of light, you would need an infinite amount of energy in order to propel your infinitely massive spaceship. Infinite mass and infinite energy both represent actual infinites, and as we have already discussed, an actual infinite is impossible. Therefore it is impossible to travel at, or beyond, the speed of light.

 

 

2.2) The Argument Based on the Impossibility of the Formation of an Actual Infinite by Successive Addition

 

2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite. I am reminded of a show I used to watch when I was younger. I don’t even know if it is on the air anymore. People around my age (26) or older may remember it; it was called “Square One.” It was a variety show aimed at children that had math themed skits. Anyway, on one of the skits I remember the characters were singing about infinity or the highest number (I can’t quite remember) and one of the characters (1) asked another character (2) what the highest number was and he then rattled off a large number (I don’t recall the number so for sake of this discussion I will just make one up): 9837897636767451. Character (1) then asked what about 9837897636767452 and 9837897636767453? Character (2) thought about it for a while and after some time came to the understanding that no matter what number one has in mind, there is always a higher number. The point of this little trip down memory lane is to point out that no matter how much time one has, and no matter how many numbers one counts, there will always be a bigger number, thus one will never be able to reach infinity. I don’t think anyone denies this. It is rather axiomatic. I don’t know why William Lane Craig, the main proponent of the KCA, spends so much time explaining it. But, I guess, I am probably doing the same thing here.

 

This argument is also called the impossibility of traversing the infinite. If I set out on a journey wanting to go to an infinitely distant place it wouldn’t matter where I start from, how long I have been traveling, or how many steps I have taken because there would also be more distance to cover. I would never arrive at my destination because infinite space cannot be traversed. Suppose we wanted to build a yellow brick road out to our infinite place. Obviously this would be impossible as no matter how many bricks we had laid in tandem we would always have one more brick to lay. Indeed, the only way that an actual infinite would be possible is if it were created all at once, spontaneously. So the only way our infinite yellow brick road would be possible is if it were created all at once in all its infinitude.

 

2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. Anyone who knows anything about history knows that the past was formed in a sequential manner. It was not just created wholly in one spontaneous moment. So the same principle that we used in the above discussion of the impossibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition applies to past events. We see that a temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. Let’s assume that the past is infinite and that each of the tandem bricks in our infinite yellow brick road represents a moment in the past. If this were the case then no matter how many steps we took, i.e. no matter how many past events we passed by, we would never reach the brick representing the present moment. We would spend an eternity just working our way through the infinite past. In other words if the past were infinite, and each real number represents a past event, then no matter how much time had past, we would never reach the present.

 

2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be an actual infinite. We have seen that a collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite and as I showed above a temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. If the universe were infinite, then the present moment would never have arrived, thus the universe is finite because the present moment has arrived. The universe has a finite past, hence it has a beginning.

 

The Big Bang

The Big Bang is the leading theory as to the origin of the universe. Since this write up is already somewhat lengthy I will just briefly enumerate the evidences of the Big Bang. I imagine these are available in numerous places throughout the web, but if you would like me to go into more detail as to how this supports the beginning of the universe I will.

a) The expansion of the universe.

b ) The comic microwave background radiation (CMBR)

c) The universe is composed of about 25% helium and lesser amounts of some of the other light isotopes. These numbers fall in line with predictions and observations if the isotopes were ‘cooked’ by nuclear fusion during the first few minutes of the universe.

d) The conditions of universe have been recreated in nuclear accelerators down to the time when it was one ten billionth of a second old.

 

 

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. Since we have established that (1) whatever begins to exist has a cause and (2) that the universe began to exist, it follows logically that the universe has a cause. Now we have to wonder at the cause of the universe. The universe is an enormous and wondrous place with intricate inner workings. It has been defined as the sum total of everything that has existed and everything that will exist. So it stands to reason that the cause of the universe, which must be bigger than and outside of its creation, possesses some superlative attributes.

 

Like I said above the universe is an enormous and delicately balanced place that contains all there is. Thus in order to create the enormous universe from nothing and bring it to fruition the creator must be all-powerful.

 

Within the creation of the universe was the creation of space-time. Since space-time was created with the universe it stands to reason that it did not exist before the creation of the universe. Thus, the entity that created the universe must be atemporal and non-spatial and exist separately from space-time and the universe. By extension this being must be changeless because atemporality necessitates changelessness as time can only be measured between events or when the state of something that exists changes. Also, by extension, this being must be immaterial since changeless and timelessness entail immateriality as the result of absence of corporeal substance. With no time before the universe the creator must also be beginningless and uncaused. Only a timeless entity could create a place with a temporal effect included.

 

The attributes -- all-powerful, timeless, beginningless, immaterial, changeless – that we have derived from the cause of the universe are some of the same traditional attributes that have been used to describe the divine entity.

 

In addition to this a case could also be made showing that this entity can also be regarded as personal. Let’s explore this step by step.

 

What types of causes are there? There are scientific causes and personal causes in terms of the agents and the choices they make. There are scientific causes such as the laws of nature. But the universe could not possibly have a scientific cause since nothing precedes it. It might also suffice to say that the laws of physics are created at the Big Bang. So that leaves us with personal cause.

 

Since we discussed the Creator as being immaterial let me ask another question: What are the only things that are immaterial? If you answered minds (in terms of consciousness and higher mental functions) and abstract objects, you are right. Since abstract objects are incapable of carrying out causal relationships, the cause of the universe must be the only other choice: a mind.

 

If there is nothing, then nothing can be created. A finite universe with a beginning being created from nothing is an absurd notion. For if there is absolute nothingness how could a universe be created, spontaneously, ex nihilo, from it? We would have to presuppose some requisite conditions that came into play in order to create its consequence. But how can this be if there is absolute nothingness? It would suggest change, which contradicts nothingness. No requisite causal conditions could ever come into play. Instead, a personal agent must choose to bring about the universe. Through this principle of agent causation, the universe must be determined by a cause, who, from its volition, creates its effect without a prior seminal state of affairs. The agent has free will, and is able to perform an action with the intention of bringing about a certain state of affairs not present before. An all-powerful God could be able to bring the universe into existence through His free will.

 

And there you have it. We have seen that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the universe is finite and has a beginning. We have also seen that everything that comes into existence has a cause, including the universe. Exploring the cause of the universe, and the attributes such a cause must possess in order to bring such a place into existence, we determined that it must be all-powerful, timeless, spaceless, beginningless, immaterial, changeless, and that it has elements of mind and personhood (personal). We are left with the conclusion that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator. On this basis, it can be deemed that belief in God is reasonable and rationale and any argument to the contrary in untenable.

 

Xavier Raymondo

[MrSpooky]

No.

 

Yes, guys, I know reading a philosophical paper is hard, but just take it step-by-step... DO NOT just skim it thinking you'll get the gist of it.

 

 

 

Cosmology: the scientific or philosophical field that deals with the origins of the universe.  We will address cosmology in the philosophical form.

 

Epistemology:  The philosophical study of knowledge.  It addresses such questions as "What is knowledge?" and "What is knowable?"

 

Metaphysics:  The study of reality.  It addresses such questions as "What IS?" as opposed to Epistemology, which asks "What is KNOWN?"  Due to the phenomenal/noumenal distinction that Kant outlined, much of modern philosophy, which focused on speculative metaphysics (such as Berkeley "proving" that there was no such thing as matter), shifted to more epistemic goals.  Most, if not all metaphysics in the postmodern era are carried out on an epistemic foundation.  As a result, the following proof has epistemic roots, not metaphysical.

 

Existence:  In this paper, it is synonymous with "NATURE."  The two terms will be used interchangably.  Existence/Nature is the body of all that is natural, knowable, and quantifiable.  Existence is the aggregate of all things and the physical limitations of all things.  In order to be natural, knowable, and quantifiable, an object must have determinate properties, and that means having limitations.

 

The Supernatural:  In this paper, it is synonymous in many ways with "GOD."  The two terms will be used interchangably. 

 

The Supernatural/God is the body of all that is NOT natural, knowable, and quantifiable.  Supernatural means "Beyond Nature," and as such the Supernatural does NOT have determinate properties, it has no limitations, and therefore is NOT knowable or quantifiable.  This term may seem somewhat general (I focus on The Supernatural rather than a supernatural BEING), but it is my wish to avoid any fallacy of excluded middle and to at the same time address the entire body of supernaturalism and supernatural causes.  Please note that by "unknowable/unquantifiable" I do NOT mean "What is not YET known/quantifiable," but "what CANNOT be known/quantifiable by definition."  Not knowing the limits of knowing is not the same as not knowing.

 

Unintelligible:  In philosophy, a very serious charge to levy against an idea.  An idea that is unintelligible is one that simply, absolutely "makes no sense," because it has made a blatant logical fallacy that entails critical self-contradiction, ignores significant qualitative data, or is not logically constructed.

 

*Note: I will be citing previous posts and works of mine, but I'll try to elaborate as best as possible.

 

 

 

This paper will address the question: "How do you explain existence?" This is the root of all philosophical cosmology.

 

 

 

Introduction: What is Philosophy?

 

First, it must be noted that before we can arrive at an appropriate answer, we must ask the appropriate question. A question well-asked is already half-answered, as the old adage goes. There have been many instances in the past where people have sought to conduct inquiries with poorly-phrased questions: the Salem Witch Trials were excellent examples.

 

(previous post) The prosecutors at the time didn't ask for a plea of innocence or guilt, but rather formulated their questions in ways that PRESUPPOSED the guilt of the accused. Instead of asking things such as "Did you or did you not consort with the Devil?" they asked "WHY did you consort with the Devil?" 

 

The precise reason this question is an intellectually bad one is that it presupposes the guilt of the accused. It missed out on a possible alternative: that the accused might NOT be guilty.

 

Thus, we conduct our inquiry of the question "How do you explain existence?" NOT by seeking an answer for this question, but by seeing if it is possible to ask the question without encountering an absurdity, fallacy, or contradiction.

 

The first thing to note is that nearly every sentence we utter has its presuppositions. One of the goals of philosophy, then, is to minimize those presuppositions (Ockham's Razor) or compare those presuppositions with others of similar construct to see if they make sense. If those presuppositions are false, we must discard the statement as false.

 

 

 

The Nature of Existence: Necessity and Contingency

 

There are two possible statements we may make about Existence:

 

1) Existence DOES NOT require an explanation (i.e. it is Necessary, it is a-priori, it is self-supporting)

2) Existence DOES require an explanation (i.e. it is Contingent, it is a-posteriori, it is NOT self-supporting)

 

Thus, the question "How do you explain existence?" PRESUPPOSES that Existence requires an explanation (it presupposes that Existence is Contingent). However, this alone does NOT establish that Existence is Necessary. Thus, we seem to be stuck at an impasse: there does not seem to be any way of determining whether existence is Necessary or whether it is Contingent.

 

Existence can be either Necessary or Contingent.

 

Thus, we will look towards the second main element of the question: the nature of an explanation.

 

 

 

The Nature of Explanations: An Epistemic Analysis

 

What EXACTLY is an explanation? What EXACTLY do we need in order to formulate an explanation? Why is it that some attempts at explaining an idea work and others don't?

 

Suppose a child (who knows nothing of physics) asks "What is a rainbow made out of?" and gets two possible responses...

 

1) A rainbow is a pattern of light made by the refraction of solar visible radiation so that its component wavelengths are separated into more or less discrete segments.

2) You've played with prisms, right? First, a prism creates a rainbow pattern by bending the light. This is because white light is made up of many many different colors. When you mix them together, you get white light. When white light is bent in special ways, like through a prism, the light is broken up into the multiple colors. The air contains a lot of little water particles after it rains, and this makes the sky act like a giant prism.

You see lines of colors because some colors are "bent" (like red) differently than others (like blue). This is like when six people get together to see how far each can run in ten seconds. Mr. Red runs slower than Mr. Green, who runs slower than Mr. Blue. When each person starts running at the same time, then stops after ten seconds, Mr. Red will be further back than Mr. Green. Mr. Green will be further back than Mr. Blue.

 

Which is intelligible to the child? Which will he understand? I trust that the child will be able to piece together some understanding of rainbow mechanics by listening carefully and attentively to the second example. It is more detailed, but detailed speech does not automatically entail something easily intelligible. In contrast to the first, the second example simplifies the language to something that the child should understand, referring to experiences the child may remember or imagine (such as the prism experience and the race analogy).

 

The child has a KNOWLEDGE BASE: a collection of experiences and ideas that he knows to be true and he refers to as "knowledge." The ONLY way anyone can explain something new to any effect is to appeal to an individual's knowledge base: take elements that the subject already knows to be true and arrange them in a particular manner (while adding some simple new basic concepts, which in themselves can be traced back to direct observations and ideas).

 

So, if I present an idea, such as “space is curved,” it would be unjustified to accept it as true without an explanation. All we have been given is an idea that sounds like more like science fiction than empirical fact.However, let us say I can provide a proof to someone who knows basic geometry and basic physics:

 

1) In Euclidian space, all triangles have angles that sum to 180 degrees. (basic geometry... the subject knows this)

2) A triangle in curved space would have angles that sum to more or less than 180 degrees. (basic geometry... the subject knows this. If not, I can draw a triangle on the skin of an orange, remove the skin, flatten it, and measure the angles out for him)

3) Light, made of massless particles, should be unaffected by gravity unless gravity bends space rather than acting as a simple force to pull things that have mass. (basic physics... the subject knows this)

4) Scientists took delicate measurements near a high gravitational field with three lasers, forming a triangle. (empirical testing... the subject can imagine this)

5) The triangle made by laser light had angles that did not sum to 180 degrees: the light must have been traveling along curved rather than linear space. (result: a new observation that the subject has just now heard. Suppose he can trust me on my expertise)

6) Therefore, space is curved. (conclusion: a new idea that the subject understands!)

 

Thus, what made the new idea "space is curved" understandable is an appeal to facts and ideas that the subject already understands (basic geometry and basic physics). I arranged some elements of geometry and physics together to set up a situation, described what happened in that situation, and arrived at the logical conclusion. However, if the subject did NOT know anything about basic geometry or basic physics, he would be left scratching his head because he doesn't understand why all triangles must have angles that add up to 180 degrees, or why light is made of massless particles. In that case, I'd have to teach him about basic geometry and basic physics, expanding the size of my proof slightly.

 

Thus, in order for something to be an Explanation, it MUST have a CONTEXT within which is can work... it MUST have a set of experiences, ideas, and events that one can refer to so that the idea presented is understandable.

 

I will repeat:

 

An explanation is a method of making an idea understandable by forming a conceptual bridge from our current context (the knowledge base and demonstrable ideas/events) to an idea.

 

Without a context, one simply cannot formulate an explanation. It is the intellectual equivalent of trying to walk across a chasm without a bridge, or swimming without a body of water to swim in.

 

 

 

The Relation to Existence

 

It is true that each individual human being functions within their own unique context. An artist cannot be expected to have the same knowledge base as a biologist, a physicist cannot be expected to have the same knowledge base as a poet, and vice versa. However, all of humanity functions within one single broad context: the entirety of Existence: that is, the body of all that is knowable, measureable, quantifiable, observable, and thus demonstrable.

 

Despite the difference in knowledge contexts between a physicist and an artist, the physicist can use experiments, math, and cite repeatable scientific observations to the artist to explain an established fact of physics. The artist can point to historical figures, describe the styles, and elaborate on the mechanics of the field to describe the established facts of art (if there are any such things). If the artist does not understand the math or physics, it is possible to expand the explanation slightly to shed some more light. However, the explanation will always end at a certain point of self-evident First Principles (such as Logic), axioms, or direct observations. This is simply as far as it can go. In no place is an explanation dependant on something unknowable, unquantifiable, or undemonstrable: such things describe the boundary of how far human knowledge can extend. The project of science and philosophy, then, is to expand the human context as far as it can go.

 

So, when it is asked to "explain existence," one is seeking to build a context for Existence... however, Existence is, by its very conceptual nature, the only thing that can provide ANY concept. I am not juggling terms, I am not mincing words: this is the very nature of Existence as measured in the previous section. Existence is the ground you use to start building a bridge to a new idea. It is the foundation you use to build a scaffold to reach a new truth. If you wish to explain a new idea, you point to events and patterns external to you in Existence. Existence is the epistemic and metaphysical primary.

 

This is the primary problem that makes the request to "explain existence" unintelligible... it takes the concept of "explanation" entirely out of the boundaries in which it functions intelligibly, the realm of contexts. It seeks to find an "explanation" for an idea (that is, Existence) without a context within which to work. It is like building a bridge without ground beneath your feet. The pieces falls apart before you can even start.

 

 

 

The Second Blow to The Cosmological Argument

 

We have already dealt a philosophical killing blow to Natural Theological cosmology. However, there is a second problem that must be still addressed to expand on this problem even further, and it lies not just in the nature of the problem itself, but also in the solution.

 

Remember that the Theist argues that since one cannot "explain existence" in natural terms, one must explain Existence through SUPERNATURAL terms (that is, God).

 

So what foundation EXACTLY does one stand on when he asks to "explain existence?" Remember: to ask for an explanation is to:

 

1) Presuppose that an explanation exists

2) Presuppose that a context for that explanation to work in exists

3) That explanation must piece together elemental ideas of the context in a new way and/or add new ideas to our current understanding from the context (see the "space is curved" proof if you need to again).

 

Therefore, a context bigger than natural Existence (and will therefore help provide an explanation for existence) is presupposed: The SUPERNATURAL.

 

But herein lies the second fatal flaw.

 

As you can see, The Supernatural is the necessary premise of the Theist's cosmological argument. This argument simply won't work without it. However, The Supernatural is also the Theist's conclusion.

 

We have arrived at a blatant circular argument.

 

This huge fallacy is all due to the Theist having manufactured his own problem to find a solution: he proposes his own problem (i.e. Existence needs an explanation) and dives in with his own solution (The Supernatural [God] did it). This has been the practice of natural theology ever since it was a glimmer in the eyes of theologians.

 

The Theist can only have a successful cosmological argument to prove a Supernatural cause as necessarily existing if he presupposes the Supernatural.

 

 

 

 

 

Thus, I submit to you the final, shortened argument we have gone through...

 

 

1. Existence can be either Necessary or Contingent.

2. An explanation is a method of making an idea understandable by forming a conceptual bridge from our current context (the knowledge base and demonstrable ideas/events) to an idea.

3. Asking to "explain existence" renders it impossible to have a context to provide an explanation: the very question is impossible, self-defeating, and unintelligible.

4. The problem is further exacerbated by the blatant circular argument of natural theology: The Theist can only have a successful cosmological argument to prove a Supernatural cause as necessarily existing if he presupposes the Supernatural.

 

From this result, we will draw our conclusion:

 

*Because the concept of Existence needing an explanation is unintelligible, Existence is NOT contingent. Therefore, Existence is Necessary. Existence does not need an explanation... it simply IS.

 

 

 

There it is. A bit abstract, just a touch complex, but overall an elegant, step-by-step solid proof by elimination that Existence does not need an explanation. It is not dogma, it is not "faith," just simple, solid logic and reasoning.

 

QED: Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[MrSpooky]

Can someone else handle the Problem of Infinite Regress, please?

[MrSpooky]

Personally, I find your dismissals of Infinity as absurdities to be somewhat vacant. There's like, five kinds of infinities. What exactly do you mean when you speak of "infinity" and in what manner is it unintelligible?

 

Certainly some of the results of infinity as a factor are pretty fantastic-sounding claims, but these claims can be demonstrated both mathematically as well as empirically.

 

WHAT exactly is your criticism here?

[MrSpooky]

I must commend you, however, for submitting your own work. Your piece reminded me suspiciously of William Lane Craig's article on the Kalam, but I notice that you seem to have mainly drawn inspiration from him, you haven't plagarized.

 

Kudos to you. Honestly.

[Vigile]

Can someone else handle the Problem of Infinite Regress, please?

 

Whew! I wouldn't begin to try and take this one on. Just a couple of quick observations for what they are worth:

 

Premise 1-

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

 

My question "Did matter ever “begin” to exist?"

 

We know most things "began" to exist, but at least "one" thing has always existed, otherwise from whence did everything else come from?

 

Qualifier Premise 1-

 

2. The universe began to exist.

 

This needs to be, I think, qualified with “The universe as we now know it – i.e., post big bang." Otherwise did nothing actually exist before this event? Matter did.

 

As I said, these are just some simplistic thoughts from someone who is far from qualified.

[Asimov]

Can someone else handle the Problem of Infinite Regress, please?

 

 

Ok....God's secondary attributes define him as infinite....If what they say about infinites is true, then God cannot exist, if not, then he is finite like the rest of us, and not really what Christians define him as...there, I handled it.

[MrSpooky]

Uh... that is NOT the Problem of Infinite Regress I was referring to, guys.

 

There is a more immediate problem in this proof, which is a blatant internal contradiction between two of the premises. First, it is proposed that “all things must have a cause.” It is then proposed that “there exists something that does not have a cause” (i.e. an uncaused God). There are two ways to remedy this contradiction:

 

The first is to argue that the catalyst for the universe must have had a cause, and this cause had a cause, and this cause had a cause, and so on. That is, God had a creator, and God’s creator had a creator, and so on. Of course, Theists such as Thomas Aquinas generally find this explanation repugnant.

 

The second way is to admit that the first premise is partially untrue, that not all things must have a cause. Instead, most things have causes, but at the same time there exists a small number of things (namely, God) that in themselves do not require a creator or a cause, but instead affect everything else (namely, the universe).

 

However, this explanation is also problematic. If the first premise is false, then the second premise is also false. Thus, since we have allowed for uncaused causes into the equation, if God “just exists,” why can’t the universe “just be?” A universe without God as an explanatory concept in this manner is much more parsimonious. All the Theist has done is manufacture a problem, then moving the solution one step back. We consider the universe as the foundation of nature, then posit God as the creator of that foundation. The problem hasn’t been solved, merely expanded slightly. Who created God?

 

For example, David Brooks, in his book The Necessity of Atheism states, “If it is reasonable to assume a First Cause as having always existed, why is it unreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe always existed? To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known my the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.”

 

 

The problem therefore then reduces from a Philosophical problem to a scientific one... that is, can the Big Bang be explained within the realm of empirical science?

 

Someone please bring up Vacuum Genesis. Hit it, guys!

[Asimov]

Uh... that is NOT the Problem of Infinite Regress I was referring to, guys.

 

Haha, oh...

[dogmatically_challenged]

Mr Spooky left! Hey!

[MrSpooky]

I'm still here, kinda. I'm just working on my lecture notes and stuff.

[Vigile]

Uh... that is NOT the Problem of Infinite Regress I was referring to, guys.

 

For example, David Brooks, in his book The Necessity of Atheism states, “If it is reasonable to assume a First Cause as having always existed, why is it unreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe always existed? To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known my the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.”

 

 

Someone please bring up Vacuum Genesis.  Hit it, guys!

 

Spooky, you have a much better grasp for this stuff than I and I think you stated much more articulately the point I tried to convey in your paragraph quoted above.

 

I'm not sure what you refer to with "Vaccum Genesis." However, and realize I'm just a Poli Sci major, Stephen Hawking argued quite clearly for a universe in which materials just existed. As you state, this is much less problematic than moving the solution a step back as do the theists. We do know that in the universe nothing is destroyed, it only changes form. Thus the natural argument is an infinitely better foundation to start from than the unnatural argument which could derive from as many possibilities as we can conjecture.

 

I will now stop displaying my ignorance and leave this to you and others more qualified.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

My head has just exploded. But it's a painful, circular argument to begin with, because almost any Christian I ask will always use the "But the universe has to have a beginning, therefore God created it" rebuttal, then not admit the corner they've backed themselves into. Because they simply won't admit that by their logic, if everything has to have a trigger to begin, then God must also have been created by Something Else, which was created by Something Else, ad infinite.

[MrSpooky]

You're a sweetie, Vigile, but the most important thing is a willingness to learn, which you seem to have in abundance.

 

Vacuum Genesis is the phenomenon in quantum physics in which "virtual matter" can form spontaneously and randomly, apparently WITHOUT ANY CAUSE. This phenomenon, however, still obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics, yet some scientific Cosmological models state that the Universe is the result of a massive quantum fluctuation... that is, a huge huge instance of Vacuum Genesis.

 

The Universe just pretty much popped into being by accident.

 

Also note that modern understandings of causality differ from classical understandings of causality (which is the foundation of the Kalam). Classical causality postulates that it is a relationship between "cause" and "effect." Ergo, the need for a "prime mover," or an infinite regress of causes.

 

Some modern conceptions of causality, however, state that causality is merely an extension of the Axiom of Identity. Things that exist can only exist because they have discrete, limited properties, and ergo behave in accordance with those properties. A bouncy ball bounces because it possesses the property "bouncy," not merely because the bounce is a relation between the floor and the ball.

 

One must then note that the foundation of reality is statistical and probabilistic (quantum physics) and not dynamic. This is a matter that allows us to discard the Kalam.

[thomas]

2.11)  An actual infinite cannot exist. 

We all basically know what an infinite is from math class, but few people actually sit down and really contemplate the meaning of the word.  Few people contemplate what infinity is in actual form and the profound implications thereof.

 

Right now you may be asking yourself, what is an actual infinite?  An actual infinite is something that is in infinite form, it is a ‘whole infinite,’ if you will.  This is differentiated from a potential infinite which is something that is increasing towards infinity, but is not infinity.  In concrete, or tangible, terms, an infinite cannot exist.  Since there are no actual infinites, and indeed an actual infinite is impossible, it can be a difficult idea to explain.  A thought experiment, called the Paradox of Herbert’s Hotel, created by the German mathematician David Hilbert is often used to illustrate the absurdities that entail an actual infinite.  In a normal hotel, with a finite number of rooms, when the rooms are all occupied a potential guest has to be turned away as there is no vacancy, but let’s look at what happens in Herbert’s Hotel with its infinite number of rooms.  Herbert’s Hotel, like I said, has an infinite number of rooms and let’s suppose that each room is occupied, thus the hotel, in theory, has no vacancy, right?  But if a new potential guest comes asking for a room the proprietor of this bizarre establishment is happy to oblige.  In order to accommodate the guest he just moves the guest in room number 1 to room number 2 and the guest in room number 2 to room number 3 and so on and so on.  This creates a vacancy in room number one, thereby accommodating the new guest.  Before the new guest arrived, there were already an infinite number of guests, so how many guests are there now that a new guest has arrived?  A mathematician would tell you that there are no more guests now than there were before, that there is still an infinite.  How can this be if one more guest was added to the roster?  Suppose an infinite number of new guests arrived and the owner freed up rooms in the same manner as described above in order to accommodate them.  How many would there be then?  So you see this is paradoxical.  It is also impossible that a hotel can have vacancies and not have vacancies at the same time, but this would be the case if a room from the infinite amount of rooms were freed up.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Herbert’s Hotel does not show anything about what can or cannot exist. It only shows, that our concepts for communicating about infinity are poor.

 

You presented a hotel with “infinite number of rooms and let’s suppose that each room is occupied”. But I think, this is a false way to start. As I see it, it is possible to imagine an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests. But it is wrong to say that each room is occupied, since this so to speak requires one to compare two infinite numbers to see if they are equal, or if one is bigger then the other.

 

So the Herbert Hotel goes wrong because you apply mathematics ( “=”, “>” and “<”) developed for finite numbers to evaluate a situation where infinity is present. Herbert‘s Hotel does not say anything about what may or may not exist, but it shows, that our mathematical concepts are limited.

[Ouroboros]

I. The beginning

 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) derives its name from the Arabic word kalam, which, in medieval times, designated theology or philosophical theism.  It is so named because kalam philosophers largely developed the idea of the impossibility of infinite regress.

 

What did they know back in medieval times?

Are we supposed to think that some clever, but old, philosophers could back-pedal all that science has discovered the last 100 years?

 

II. Create something from nothing

 

The basic outline of the KCA:

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.  The universe began to exist.

3.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

The fallacy starts here: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”

 

To postulate that everything that begins to exist has to have a cause is just based on pure observations in a limited framework. It’s a speculation since we don’t fully understand our existence or our universe, and nothing about the world beyond the universe.

 

That argument is only based purely on the observations from this universe.

 

We don’t know in what kind of environment or world or dimension God lives in (if he exists), so how can we determine that everything that beings to exist has to have a cause.

 

Now, not that God allegedly created the universe from nothing, so anything that exists actually can be made from nothing.

 

And that takes us to this interesting quote:

 

This first principle is an intuitive metaphysical principle.  A rational human being would not deny the principle that something cannot come from nothing.  It is axiomatic really, one of the fundaments of reality.   Suppose, for a moment, that you are walking down the street and you see something completely unknown to you – such as a strange watch or a strange cigarette container.  The underlying assumption here is that it came from somewhere.  You would not hold the absurd notion that it has no cause, that there is no explanation for its existence as if it just appeared there spontaneously out of nothing. 

 

Here you see the absurdity of the argument and the logic.

 

- Nothing can come to existence from nothing

- Anything you see has to come from something

- God created the world from nothing

- Therefore, things can come into existence from nothing

 

This is a total contradiction!!!

 

And why is that?

 

A truck didn’t come into existence by itself. It was constructed from metal and plastic, all that was in turn manufactured from chemicals and raw material. The raw material was found in nature, and nature exists in our world. Our world was either created from nothing, or came into existence from nothing, or the energy existed in another state or form and then made our universe possible.

 

We can’t compare molding dough to create matter from non-existence.

 

The fallacy to compare the beginning of the universe with a truck or any physical objects that we can touch and see in our world, is that everything we see around us is not created in the same sense as the universe. We can form and mold the matter that exists, but we don’t create anything from nothing. We only change the already existing material.

 

If God created the world from nothing, then the underlying assumption that something can’t come from nothing is false. Because God proves it can.

 

If God created the world from nothing, proves that things can come into existence from nothing, and therefore the thought that the universe could come into existence without a cause could be true.

 

By this God proves his own existence to be false!

 

We can’t make a logical postulate based on a limited view in a restricted framework. The first postulate requires an understanding of the physics beyond this world, and we don’t have it. So the whole Kalam argument falls on its first premise, because it’s based on speculation and not an absolute fact.

 

II. Create something from something else

 

Let’s change the approach a bit, and let us say God didn’t create the universe from nothing, but he started with pre-existing matter (PEM), what would that mean?

 

If God had PEM to form the universe from, where did get that from, if he didn’t create it?

 

Was that PEM pre-existing and eternal?

 

Who created the PEM, if God didn’t?

 

According to Kalam, anything that exists must have a cause, and we just said that God did not create the PEM, so who did?

 

The PEM must have a creator according to Kalam, consequently God must have a God, and he would have a deity that he worship.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Jebusfuckingmooseballs...

 

If "God" is such an all powerful *force* and/or *presence* why does he/she/it require paragraph after paragraph of disargumentation to try and prove its existance?

 

Sorry sectarian cats, if *god* existed in a format in which we mere mortals could understand, a more universal and hopefully "user-friendly" thing would be understood and accepted by all...

 

20k+ xtian denominations plus, crazies with semtex and AK's, cross toting whackjobs, and those in my country trying to conform daFatman and his House to *their* thinking?

 

Something aint'a right in the mind of the followers of the Exposed gohWds..

 

K I S S

 

n, setting his scope for a heavier slug and a few more meters out..

[Ouroboros]

Sorry about my previous post, it was messy because I’m in a hurry, and I will try to add something to the arguments here.

 

The problem with Kalam is that it’s trying to explain things from inside the box. Consider if we lived inside a box, with rules that only applied to the world inside. We can’t use the rules that only apply in here, to explain the rules that apply outside the box.

 

The postulates in Kalam states:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

But it should really say: (this is the hidden agenda, and shows the circular argument)

0. God can create something from nothing without a cause, he is the cause

1. Whatever begins to exist inside our universe has to have cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (which would be God)

 

It makes an assumption that God can contradict the 1st postulate, without that contradiction the rest can’t be true. But with that assumption, God has been taken for granted before the logic would prove that he exists.

 

How can we base our explanation of God from natural events in our world, when it required a supernatural event to start it? Thus it can’t prove the supernatural.

 

IV. Intelligent or non-intelligent cause

 

The example that was given with the bus etc. is wrong in the whole argument, because the Cause doesn’t have to do anything with “create something from nothing”. The cause is just the reason, motive or purpose of the something to being created.

 

If God created the world from nothing or from something else is moot, because the First Movement argument doesn’t really talk about matter per se, but what got it all started. It’s a question of Cause and Effect.

 

Was there a reason to why the universe was created?

 

Was it an intelligent thought behind the creation that started it all?

 

If we want to stay in the box to explain that, and make a reasonable argument for an intelligent first mover, we’re into big trouble.

 

More or less everything in this universe is in motion by causes that are not intelligent. We can find reasons to it, but without any thought or purpose behind it.

 

Take for instance a rock that starts rolling down a hill. It was lying on the top of the hill, and rain has penetrated the earth around it, and its motion started with an earthquake.

 

No one thought this out and gave the rock a push. The motion was started by natural events. And this is how a majority of events in the universe works.

Even our free will is debated still. It could be a function in a large, chaotic and complex machinery that gives us the illusion of free will, and if that’s the case, all that’s happening “inside the box” is based on natural events.

 

So by looking at our universe, it’s more likely that the First Mover was Non-Intelligent, rather than intelligent.

 

But looking outside the box (which we can’t), we can’t be sure if there is an intelligence or not. And if there is, it would likely be beyond our understanding and maybe even he/she/it can’t understand us either.

 

So a First Mover argument only argues the beginning of a motion, but can’t argue the intelligence of the same.

[♦ nivek ♦]

There is problem for sectarians Han..

 

I'm not gonna willfully fit into their *box* just because it is their box..

 

Fukk'um. when I have to play on their playground then I have to play by their rules.

 

Thread starter is a list of rules and regulations warranted to tilt any *game* their way.

 

daFatman doesn't play games like that.

 

I am not particularly *simple minded*, however the time I might give to some idiotic sectarian discussion is one I can use elsewhere. Will admit that my brain is a *zero-sum game* and that I have a hard time tying to multitask when things in front of me are requiring done..

 

Sectarian arguments are simply mindfucks for those who have the time to donate to having a good time with chapters and verses of select cuts of their holy works..

 

n, uncomplicated, uncluttered, total slob and Freeman

[Ouroboros]

VI. Infinite must exist

 

Right now you may be asking yourself, what is an actual infinite? An actual infinite is something that is in infinite form, it is a ‘whole infinite,’ if you will. This is differentiated from a potential infinite which is something that is increasing towards infinity, but is not infinity. In concrete, or tangible, terms, an infinite cannot exist. Since there are no actual infinites, and indeed an actual infinite is impossible, it can be a difficult idea to explain. A thought experiment, called the Paradox of Herbert’s Hotel, created by the German mathematician David Hilbert is often used to illustrate the absurdities that entail an actual infinite. In a normal hotel, with a finite number of rooms, when the rooms are all occupied a potential guest has to be turned away as there is no vacancy, but let’s look at what happens in Herbert’s Hotel with its infinite number of rooms. Herbert’s Hotel, like I said, has an infinite number of rooms and let’s suppose that each room is occupied, thus the hotel, in theory, has no vacancy, right? But if a new potential guest comes asking for a room the proprietor of this bizarre establishment is happy to oblige. In order to accommodate the guest he just moves the guest in room number 1 to room number 2 and the guest in room number 2 to room number 3 and so on and so on. This creates a vacancy in room number one, thereby accommodating the new guest. Before the new guest arrived, there were already an infinite number of guests, so how many guests are there now that a new guest has arrived? A mathematician would tell you that there are no more guests now than there were before, that there is still an infinite. How can this be if one more guest was added to the roster? Suppose an infinite number of new guests arrived and the owner freed up rooms in the same manner as described above in order to accommodate them. How many would there be then? So you see this is paradoxical. It is also impossible that a hotel can have vacancies and not have vacancies at the same time, but this would be the case if a room from the infinite amount of rooms were freed up.

 

The Hotel parable is a game of numbers and infinite sets. Math deals with infinites and just playing mind games doesn’t make it untrue. You can mathematically work on infinite sets, but there’s nothing Whole about it.

 

“Since there are no actual infinites” is just a way for the author to declare what he believes before he’s proving it.

 

“Paradox of Herbert’s Hotel” is just a paradox, and there are many paradoxes in math, and in the universe, and also in the belief of God. Is he one or three? Is he omnipresent and yet personal? Is he omnipotent and omni-benevolent?

 

If God is infinite, then the infinite must exist.

 

It’s an absurd statement to say the infinite doesn’t exist, because it must.

 

Maybe we can’t understand the concept of infinite, and that’s because you can’t contemplate infinites in finites. You can’t explain the regression of pi, by saying it’s just close to the number 3.

 

To give you an example of mind game, just imaging pi with its chain of numbers.

 

Let’s give each letter in our alphabet a pair of digits. Let say 00 for space, 01 for A, 02 for B, and so on.

 

Somewhere in the pi you would find the whole Bible written out, or Shakespeare’s collected works. It’s not a matter of probability; it’s a matter of truth. A number series somewhere in pi will even spell out this boring document.

 

That’s just how infinity works, everything is there.

 

The story about the hotel has the problem of stating “But if a new potential guest comes asking for a room”. What new guest. We’re talking about the infinite set of guests; there are no more guests to come. The infinite set of guests already includes this guest, so he was already welcome to the hotel and didn’t have to look for a room.

[MrSpooky]

Herbert’s Hotel does not show anything about what can or cannot exist. It only shows, that our concepts for communicating about infinity are poor.

 

You presented a hotel with “infinite number of rooms and let’s suppose that each room is occupied”. But I think, this is a false way to start. As I see it, it is possible to imagine an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests. But it is wrong to say that each room is occupied, since this so to speak requires one to compare two infinite numbers to see if they are equal, or if one is bigger then the other.

 

So the Herbert Hotel goes wrong because you apply mathematics ( “=”, “>” and “<”) developed for finite numbers to evaluate a situation where infinity is present. Herbert‘s Hotel does not say anything about what may or may not exist, but it shows, that our mathematical concepts are limited.

 

Please forgive me for being a little critical, but how is this mathematically problematic?

 

EDIT: Never mind, I thought about it a little more.

[Ouroboros]

I'm not gonna willfully fit into their *box* just because it is their box..

 

Fukk'um.  when I have to play on their playground then I have to play by their rules.

 

(snip)

 

n, uncomplicated, uncluttered, total slob and Freeman

 

Well said. Love it!

 

Stay outside their sand box, because they only want to take your bucket from you anyway, those selfish bastards.

 

Be free Nivek!

[crazy-tiger]

*reads thread*

 

 

*reads some more*

 

 

*reads last posts*

 

 

Nope... can't follow this...

[MrSpooky]

“Paradox of Herbert’s Hotel” is just a paradox, and there are many paradoxes in math, and in the universe, and also in the belief of God.

 

I very must disagree with this statement.

 

A paradox is something which by its very nature has no epistemic or metaphysical weight because it violates the Law of NonContradiction.

 

Thus, we have to address whether the Herbert's Hotel deal IS a paradox or not.

 

Like I said before, there's several different kinds of infinity in mathematics that must be considered, and one must also remember that we're NOT working in a set of Real Numbers. While I am no mathematician, I do understand that these factors are relevant, and the Kalam as presented here has utterly failed to address that.

[Ouroboros]

I very must disagree with this statement.

 

A paradox is something which by its very nature has no epistemic or metaphysical weight because it violates the Law of NonContradiction.

 

Thus, we have to address whether the Herbert's Hotel deal IS a paradox or not.

 

Like I said before, there's several different kinds of infinity in mathematics that must be considered, and one must also remember that we're NOT working in a set of Real Numbers.  While I am no mathematician, I do understand that these factors are relevant, and the Kalam as presented here has utterly failed to address that.

 

It’s actually Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel. (David Hilbert)

 

When it comes to set theories there are still problems that doesn’t have “clean” solutions in math. Like the “Continuum Hypothesis”.

 

The Hotel Paradox doesn’t have to be explained to proven wrong, it’s just wrong to use an argument of infinite sets to prove that infinite sets doesn’t exist.

 

If A/A = 1, and 0/A = 0, then is 0/0 = 1?

No, because it’s an invalid calculation. You’re not allowed to do this.

 

My argument is that the Hotel Paradox shouldn’t be in the argument that infinity doesn’t exist. It’s just a mathematical mind game.

 

There are currently not good explanations to the Paradox, except that it not only includes infinite rooms and guests, but also supertasks which have to be performed in an instant, and can only be performed by a deity. So the paradox can only exist if also God exists. Only an infinite being can perform an infinite task. So the infinite must exist if the paradox proves it doesn't. Just another layer of the paradox, which still doesn't prove anything.

 

Another problem with the paradox is that is uses different cardinalities of infinite sets.

It mixes in one guest in the infinite set of guests.

 

Like “infinite rooms”, “infinite guests”, “add one (1) guest”.

 

Was the (1) guest a part of the set from start or wasn’t he?

 

The infinite series: 1,3,5,7,9 … (just adding 2)

Let us now say we have number 8, where will that fit in into the set?

Huh! How strange it doesn’t, so the infinite series doesn’t exists! Tada!

 

Either the formula was wrong when you started (should have been “infinite rooms+1”),

or maybe the guest canceled and never showed up.

 

The Hotel doesn’t allow smoking, but yet all of the guests have a cigar, because there is one cigar that is passed from one guest to the next, so no one has a cigar, and yet they do. But do they have time to smoke it?

 

One of the guests die, so now a room actually opened up!

 

To sum it up, there is no hotel with infinite rooms and infinite number of guests.

 

And if the paradox proves that there is no infinity, then it can be used against Gods timeless existence too.