The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Ouroboros]

We can sum it up this way:

 

1. Dogs can't see color

2. A Golden Retriever is a dog.

3. Gold is a color (yellow)

4. Hence, Dogs can't see Golden Retrievers

 

We as finite in mind and thought, can't see infinity in its complete, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[edit]

 

And I know, this kind of gives fuel to the argument, "if we can't see God, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist".

 

But infinity can be validated by math, and God can't.

 

That's why I say "we can not know." - whatever is there, it's outside our box.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Mr. Spooky, you've done the work already, I think before I've yet started to read the posting and your replies. So I feel a little more leisure before heading back "actually" (heh heh) to read them.

 

Just jumping in prematurely here and cheating before I read in extenso later:

 

1. good comments Han Solo, Mr. Spooky and others, that the Kalam types today make unwarranted assumptions about the Big Bang

2. interesting about virtual matter in a vaccuum - can't comment on that

 

3. I'm surprised that Kalam proponents usually don't confront this problem: Aristotle both argued against the possibility of an actual infinite and believed that the universe is eternal. That fact should be a warning sign to Kalamists that maybe there's something wrong with their argument.

Off the top of my head, I disagree with what X-ray tries to do with actual infinite. Aristotle's reason for arguing against an actual infinite is that the events that make up a series of events can always themselves be subdivided. So, you can't reach an actual infinite even in an eternal universe; you can always subdivide the events, and subdivide the subdivisions, ad infinitum. There are no indivisible, prime events that can be added to each other to yield an actual infinite series. Time only presents us with a potential infinite (that's part of Aristotle's reply to Zeno's paradox about Achilles and the tortoise). So, without reading through yet in detail (which I will do, X-ray!), I think X-ray's subargument 2 misses the mark. X-ray, you're not thinking of potential infinite only as a linear progression by addition, are you?

 

Be back to talk to youse later!

[Mike D]

On this basis, it can be deemed that belief in God is reasonable and rationale and any argument to the contrary in untenable.

Any argument to the contrary is untenable? Does this mean you now put your fingers in your ears and run off?

 

Your argument asserts that a "mind" existed prior to the physical universe, which created it, and this "mind" is God. But you haven't really defined "mind" other than it is immaterial. What is your evidence that an immaterial mind can exist indepedant of the materal (i.e. a brain)? What is your evidence that some minds don't have a beginning and don't need a cause? What is your evidence that some minds can cause physical realities to come into existence from nothing? None of this seems consistent with what we know about minds.

 

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.

Given these attributes, if Room-A contained God and Room-B contained nothing, how would I tell the difference?

[Ouroboros]

Any argument to the contrary is untenable?  Does this mean you now put your fingers in your ears and run off?

 

(snip)

 

Given these attributes, if Room-A contained God and Room-B contained nothing, how would I tell the difference?

 

 

Very good! Now I know what "untenable" means!

 

 

I like the room thing!

 

If presented with two doors, behind one is God, behind the other is nothing.

 

How can I make a rational argument that God must be behind one of the doors I select?

I can't.

The chance is 50/50.

 

And that's how the argument goes. We can't know either way.

 

But to assert that God MUST exist, or even that he MUST NOT, are both irrational in my mind.

 

Because we're trying to explain to the dog how to see in colors.

 

The infinite is not a paradox, God is the paradox. He does and doesn't exist. He's just a quantum god. When you think you see him, he's gone!

[Mike D]

The infinite is not a paradox, God is the paradox. He does and doesn't exist. He's just a quantum god. When you think you see him, he's gone!

Exactly

 

I just noticed that other than "all-powerful" (what does that really mean anyway?), you could give "nothing" the same attributes as "god" and there really would be no difference between the two. But oh, wait, Christians tell us we were created in God's image!

[Ouroboros]

Exactly

 

I just noticed that other than "all-powerful" (what does that really mean anyway?), you could give "nothing" the same attributes as "god" and there really would be no difference between the two.   But oh, wait, Christians tell us we were created in God's image! 

 

So you're telling me I'm nothing?

 

I'm a nobody?

 

Damn!

 

Shucks, I actually knew that already...

My wife told me so, the last time we argued...

[Mike D]

So you're telling me I'm nothing?

 

I'm a nobody?

 

Damn!

 

Shucks, I actually knew that already...

My wife told me so, the last time we argued...

No, you're God!

[Ouroboros]

No, you're God! 

 

Of course, because God is nothing, and I'm nothing, so I must be God!

 

To argue, if God exists or not, is just like arguing if there is an answer to division by zero.

 

The whole discussion is moot, the answer doesn't exist.

 

That's why it's irrational to believe in God, but also irrational to not believe in God.

 

Ha! Now I most likely have stirred up some strong emotions in all camps!

 

I look at it like this:

 

There is a story that a man buried a treasure in a garden.

To the story it’s also told that he made a map to the treasure, and hid it somewhere in another garden.

No one knows which garden the treasure is in, and they don’t know where the map is either.

 

Now, do you believe in the treasure?

Do you believe in the map?

 

Some people believe there’s a treasure and map, and will spend time looking for the treasure, without the map.

 

Some believe there’s a treasure and map, and they falsify the map to convince others they’ve found the treasure.

 

Some people believe there’s a map, but are not sure if there’s a treasure, but will spend time looking for the map, so they can know for sure.

 

Some people just say there’s neither a map nor a treasure, so they’re just not looking.

 

Some even say they found the map, and that the map says that there is not treasure.

 

And then some people say, the treasure might exist, and the map too, but no one can be sure, and that you can’t find them with current knowledge.

 

The treasure is God.

The map is the answer to the question; does God exist.

 

So in which category do you place yourself?

[X-Ray]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am talking about infinity in concrete, corporeal terms. Take, for example, the yellow brick road I was talking about. Imagine a yellow brick road, made by placing one brick tandem to the next, going on forever. It could not happen. Even the universe only has a finite amount of matter so taking all the matter in the universe and trying to create an infinitely long bridge could not happen. An infinite in corporeal terms (i.e. an actual infinite) is impossible. You would be hard pressed to find one example of an actual infinite; something that is material and infinite.

 

What are the five kinds of infinities?

 

Thank you for your compliment. Since there is only one KCA I could not very well make something up so, yeah, this is my interpretation of the argument put forward by Craig with a few additions of my own, such as the discussion of travel at the speed of light.

 

I am not really sure what you want me do do with your first post, but since, in my opinion, it works better as an objection to a General Cosmological Argument (GCA), which is structually different than the KCA, I will try to address it. Give me a day or two to ruminate on it.

[Ouroboros]

I am talking about infinity in concrete, corporeal terms.  Take, for example, the yellow brick road I was talking about.  Imagine a yellow brick road, made by placing one brick tandem to the next, going on forever.  It could not happen.  Even the universe only has a finite amount of matter so taking all the matter in the universe and trying to create an infinitely long bridge could not happen.  An infinite in corporeal terms (i.e. an actual infinite) is impossible.  You would be hard pressed to find one example of an actual infinite; something that is material and infinite. 

 

Would you also say that the Brane Theory (derived from Membrane) that is challenging the Big Bang theory must be wrong?

 

And would you say that because in our current, visible, universe, infinity and infinite energy doesn’t exist?

 

You’re correct that it doesn’t exist in OUR Universe, but it could exist between the parallel universes.

 

The Brane Theory does get us closer to the concept of God, but without an intelligent purpose or sentient being behind it.

 

And it actually would give you an infinite amount of Bricks to build you Yellow Brick Road.

 

If your Kalam theory is correct, then Brane Theory still could be correct, and God doesn’t exist after all.

[X-Ray]

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?"

Yes, matter began to exist when the universe began 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.

 

This is unclear. Are you saying that matter existed before the Big Bang?

[X-Ray]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a misunderstanding of the word infinite. The infinite nature of God is qualitative, not quantitative, in that we are not using it in a mathematical sense. God is not an aggregate formed by successive addition. Instead, we are using the term to describe the attributes of God.

[Ouroboros]

To quote Jeffery Jay Lowder,

"...it is unclear how God could have caused the Big Bang since time is supposed to have been created in the Big Bang. God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect. In particular, causation in terms of intentions and desires are temporally prior to their effects. God's desires and intentions therefore cannot be the cause of the Big Bang.

[Asimov]

Yes, matter began to exist when the universe began to exist.

 

Uh...not necessarily.

 

I reread my reply and found it didn't make sense.

 

What I mean by that is that the universe doesn't necessarily have to begin to exist.

[X-Ray]

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure that it proposes that “all things must have a cause?”

Reread the first premise.

[X-Ray]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If, for example, the universe were eternal, then I would agree with you that that proposing a cause, or a transcendent being, only complicates the issue. But in light of the fact that there is abundant evidence for the Big Bang it is the leading theory as to the origin of the universe. Combined with the impossibility of an actual infinite we can conclude that the universe had a beginning. So accepting the axiomatic principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause it stands to reason that the universe had a cause. What is that cause? So it is not “moving the solution a step back” or adding unnecessary elements to wonder about the cause.

[MrSpooky]

I am not really sure what you want me do do with your first post, but since, in my opinion, it works better as an objection to a General Cosmological Argument (GCA), which is structually different than the KCA, I will try to address it. Give me a day or two to ruminate on it.

 

Of course. I really may have jumped the gun there.

 

ALL Cosmological Arguments follow the same model as the Contingency Argument, which can probably be reinterpreted quite easily as a General Cosmological Argument.

 

See, the Kalam, like all arguments, has two basic components that can be further subdivided if one wishes...

 

1. A set of presuppositions that act as a foundation. (that Existence requires an explanation)

2. The argument itself. (that a First Cause provides this explanation)

 

I find the Kalam to be flawed on both grounds. Most address the latter, in my first post I addressed the former. My argument against the former is drawn from Smith, who argued that ALL Cosmological arguments are unintelligible due to the fact that they 1) Meander away from intelligible discource and concepts, and 2) Presuppose the Supernatural in order to prove the Supernatural, and therefore runs into a Circular Argument.

 

My qualm against the latter is based on multiple problems, but each of these themselves are pretty strong and prod major flaws because they both empirically and rationally dismiss the premises of the argument. That is, there is the Problem of Regress, as well as scientific issue of Vacuum Genesis.

[Ouroboros]

This is a misunderstanding of the word infinite.  The infinite nature of God is qualitative, not quantitative, in that we are not using it in a mathematical sense. God is not an aggregate formed by successive addition.  Instead, we are using the term to describe the attributes of God.

 

Yes, that's a good way of putting it.

 

But the argument you were doing was “An actual infinite cannot exist”, you should have said “An actual infinite amount of matter in our current universe cannot exist.” which has a total different meaning.

 

Because it only stipulates that this current universe is limited and restricted in its construct, and still doesn’t disprove a pre-existing infinite energy, such in the Ekpyrotic Universe model.

[X-Ray]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All the evidence points to a beginning. Since I have explained this I will not explain it again.

 

 

 

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.

Read the first premise of the argument again.

[Ouroboros]

If, for example, the universe were eternal, then I would agree with you that that proposing a cause, or a transcendent being, only complicates the issue.  But in light of the fact that there is abundant evidence for the Big Bang it is the leading theory as to the origin of the universe. Combined with the impossibility of an actual infinite we can conclude that the universe had a beginning.  So accepting the axiomatic principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause it stands to reason that the universe had a cause.  What is that cause?  So it is not “moving the solution a step back” or adding unnecessary elements to wonder about the cause.

 

The Ekpyrotic Universe model suggests a timeless, infinite multi-universe, without a God.

[MrSpooky]

If, for example, the universe were eternal, then I would agree with you that that proposing a cause, or a transcendent being, only complicates the issue. But in light of the fact that there is abundant evidence for the Big Bang it is the leading theory as to the origin of the universe.

 

Which one? There's like, six or so Big Bang models. Some say that the Universe was self-caused, some say the Universe had a history of Big Bangs that extend backwards into infinity.

 

If it can be concieved that time can extend infinitely into the future, why is it so inconcievable that time can extend infinitely into the past? What exactly do you mean when you describe a state in which time does not exist?

 

 

 

Combined with the impossibility of an actual infinite we can conclude that the universe had a beginning. So accepting the axiomatic principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause it stands to reason that the universe had a cause. What is that cause? So it is not “moving the solution a step back” or adding unnecessary elements to wonder about the cause.

 

It IS moving the step back.

 

The point is that the premises of the Kalam depend on the idea that all things must have a causal agent (again, this is based on the classical view of causality, which I find highly questionable). However, the solution that Kalam presents is what is supposed to be an Uncaused causal agent (that is, God). This is a blatant internal contradiction.

 

Again, if it is permissible to postulate that Uncaused things exist, why is it that the Material Universe itself cannot be founded on an Uncaused thing within the context of Existence? We even have solid examples of uncaused causes in the field of quantum physics!

 

You must must MUST differentiate between the Material Universe and Existence itself. The two are mutually exclusive. If the former can be explained in the context of the latter, there is no need at all to postlate God as a First Cause because Existence is by its very nature epistemically necessary (see my first post).

[Vigile]

This is unclear.  Are you saying that matter existed before the Big Bang?

 

 

Of course it did. Are you proposing there was nothing before the big bang? That's preposterous.

[X-Ray]

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.

Tell me how a vacuum fluctuation is uncaused.

 

The Universe just pretty much popped into being by accident.

Ipse dixit.

 

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.

Sounds suspiciously related to determinism.

 

One must then note that the foundation of reality is statistical and probabilistic (quantum physics) and not dynamic.

Only on the quantum level and only certain things.

This is a matter that allows us to discard the Kalam.

How so?

[MrSpooky]

All the evidence points to a beginning. Since I have explained this I will not explain it again.

 

Correction... all the evidence points to a beginning of the MATERIAL UNIVERSE.

 

 

 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is just the standard First Cause argument with an Arabic name.

 

1. All things must have a cause

2. The universe must have a cause

3. Therefore, an uncaused cause must have been be the catalyst for the universe. (God)

4. Therefore, God exists.

 

Premise 1 and premise 3 blatantly contradict each other, thus rendering premise 2 to be highly questionable.

 

Again, if God can "just exist," what prevents the Existence from "just being?" If God does not require a causal explanation, what is it about Existence and the Universe that requires a causal explanation? Why take that extra step back and classify the Universe as a whole as a "thing-that-needs-a-causal-explanation?" If uncaused causes exist (God is assumed to be one), what prevents the Material Universe from being derived from an uncaused cause (such as phenomena seen in quantum mechanics)?

[Ouroboros]

X-Ray sounds like a Berzerk in new clothing!

 

Don't you just love these Hot Debates... tzzzz!