The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Ouroboros]

Ok, I’m back, for another crack at this.

 

Your answer in black/cursive, Mine blue.

 

 

The Ekpyrotic Universe Model is still highly theoretical.

 

Yes that’s true, but the reason I included it in my response was to show plausible alternative explanations to the Cause. Its true there could be a cause, but it’s not necessary to explain in with a Divine Entity.

 

Besides God as the explanation to the Cause is also highly theoretical.

 

 

You understand it now. The Kalam argument is arguing that the universe has a cause. The discussion of the nature of that cause is ancillary to the argument. So you are right, the conclusion that God exists does not follow directly from the argument.

 

Thanks for admitting that. Then the argument shouldn’t be about a Cause, but if the Cause was Intentional or not.

 

 

But analyzing the cause of the universe and considering attributes that it must possess in order to create the universe as well as taking into consideration the anthropic principle we can come up with a pretty good case that a sentient being created it.

 

Then you take the reasoning back to suppositions based on human thinking, understanding and belief, and the KCA doesn’t cover that.

 

 

Maybe we could use a courtroom analogy. We are looking at the evidence to discern what the cause of the universe is. Given the philosophical argument and the scientific confirmations, such as those seem through the anthropic principle, I believe that the KCA meets the onus of proof.

 

That’s what you believe, but in a court room a jury of 12 members and a judge has the final say. The Anthropic Principle is questionable and has only caused controversies. Besides would you care to argue the observation in Voltaire’s Candide; “how careful the nose is made to support spectacles”. Or maybe you’d like lay out the Anthropic Principle for the fact that Washington and Lincoln were born on holidays.

 

Anthropic Principle subjects itself to the premise that physical laws are here to provide an solution for a problem, while all of it could be “out of the balance in chaos, came a pattern.”

 

Take a look at Mandelbrot’s Fractals and see how beautiful it is, still it doesn’t have a purpose, and it follows a simple mathematical formula, and it’s infinite in design. It is the Deterministic Chaos we’re talking about here, set by functions and relations, not necessarily Intent.

 

A court case has to decide if there is enough evidence for motive, weapon and opportunity. You say there is a motive for the universe to exist, there is the necessary tool to create it and there was an opportunity to do so.

 

KCA only so far can point to opportunity. It can’t ever, nor any other argument, can prove the necessary tools required to create the world. And for the motive it is only a conjecture. Like the ants in Johnny Hart’s comic strip B.C. “it’s wonderful to be alive, to exist! What magnificent purpose has put me here? Is it to elevate the species? Is it to discover the secret of creation? Am I here to inspire my kind? Am I king? Prince? Prophet?” And the other ant answers: “Try anteater food!”

 

 

It could be, but the evidence doesn’t point that way. Like I discussed, how could, if spacetime is created at the Big Bang and did not exist without the universe, a non-sentient set of necessary and requisite conditions cause a thing with a temporal effect? I don’t need to restate the last part of my argument. And why were the physical constants in such a way as to allow life. Did you know that the fundamental unit of charge, if changed by even a fraction of 1 percent, the sun would not have been able to form? But I do not want to get into the fine-tuning and teleological arguments. Suffice to say, a non-sentient cause does not seem plausible.

 

I will just quote Robert Dicke and P.J.E. Peebles: “Imagine an ensemble of universes of all sorts. It should be no surprise that ours is not an ‘average’ one, for conditions on the average may well be hostile. We could only be present in a universe that happens to supply our needs.”

 

 

It leads to the conclusion that there is a cause for our universe.

 

I decided not to argue the KCA, but only your conclusion. I’m not arguing the Cause of the Universe, because some many others in this thread currently are taking a crack at it.

 

 

You are phrasing this in such a way as to suggest that there is a proto-universe. We don’t know if there was a proto-universe, and chances are, there wasn’t.

 

True, but its part of my argument that we don’t yet know fully what happened the moment before the Universe came to existence. So we can’t know yet at what moment the physical laws of our universe came to function. A Proto-Universe, in complete singularity, is just as plausible, without the constraints of time and space.

 

 

Yes, the physical laws of the universe break down at the Big Bang. This suggests that laws were created with the universe.

 

Yes, I concur.

 

 

This sentence is unclear. Are you trying to say that the universe was created and in a fraction of a second it was 70-80% its current size? If this is what you are saying then it is false. The universe, in its early inflationary stage, increased from something smaller than a proton to the size of a basketball in a fraction of a second. You will probably notice that this is faster than the speed of light. This is possible because the laws are not fully formed yet.

I know what you are saying though.

 

Yes, you’re right. I misstated that because of old and bad information in my poor skull. It (the universe, not my skull) expanded from the size of 10^-60 meter radius to a 1 meter before it was even 10^-30 seconds old, which is during the Inflationary Period.

 

 

Maybe I should have stuck with cause, but since the evidence, going back to the courtroom analogy, lends inself to belief in a sentient cause, I opted for the stronger word.

 

Which made you commit a esse in intellectu to esse in re because you have strong emotional attachment to the argument.

 

 

I don’t believe that is true. Gravity causes a ball to fall. The purpose of gravity is to hold things in place and keep things in order. The purpose of the strong force is to keep subatomic particles, namely hadrons, from going wild. I would think the universe would be pretty chaotic without the forces that govern all matter. Wouldn't you agree?

 

It would, and we’re lucky that we were born in that particular universe where the laws were in balance. It can’t be to nice for the beings born in the non ordered universes.

 

The purpose of gravity is to hold things together, but the cause for the ball to start rolling was not gravity, but an earthquake. The ball was in a resting position, and gravity held it in place, but an earthquake set the things in motion. The gravity didn’t cause the earthquake (at least not directly), so the direct cause of the event was non-intentional.

 

Or would you say that the reason for the earthquake was to set the ball in motion, and not to cause the buildings tumble down?

 

 

I do not subscribe to Brane Theory as far as science goes. It is too theoretical.

 

Of course, that is your prerogative, but it doesn’t negate that there could be other plausible explanations to the cause.

 

 

Time would presuppose some kind of material or event because time can be only measured between events or when something existing changes its state.

What else might be able to exist in a metaphysical world?

 

Correct, time exists because of matter and space. But what can be able to exist in a metaphysical world? Well, I would say metaphysical matter.

 

 

I don’t know much about programming. I would think that the concept of it is immaterial as it is an abstract thought, but as far as the implementation goes, I would not think so as you are giving instructions to a (a material object)computer telling what to do given certain circumstances.

 

That is very unfortunate, because I could give you a very long explanation to why a Russian Doll or Black Box theory works just as good, maybe even better, than a divine intervention, because of the Parsimony Principle.

 

So I rather subscribe to a Cause Unknown concept than Caused by God concept.

 

 

There needs to be a cause. That is basically what it is saying. Something cannot be spontaneously created without a cause. Through agent causation, it can be said that god chose to bring about a state of affairs that was not present before.

 

And I would not argue with you about a cause, but only if the cause would have to be intentional or mechanic.

 

If I hit a persons head with a hammer or if the hammer fell from a building into his head, in both cases we had the cause; a hammer hit his head, but they differ in intention. One is intentional and the other is accidental.

 

 

I already said this. Through agent causation, the universe must be determined by a cause, who, from its free will, 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. This is the purpose. Can I proof this? No. But if what you say is true that it is dangerous to leap from cause to purpose, and that most events have non-purpose causes, then why would a personal Creator need a purpose? Why couldn’t he just freely choose?

 

Still a God that freely chooses is an Intentional Act, while an Accidental Act doesn’t need a God.

 

You take the gigantic leap from existence as a concept, to existence by intent, as a fact.

 

I’m looking forward to your reply.

 

[thomas]

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.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The basic outline for a reverse KCA:

 

1. There are no causes outside this universe.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, sometimes things just happen without a cause.

 

or maybe this one:

 

1. There are no causes outside this universe.

2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

3. The universe never began to exist, it is an actual infinite.

 

[spamandham]

First you indirectly accuse me of something totally unfounded and unrelated to anyhting we have been discussing and then proceed to "give me credit" for acting contrarily. Wow! I guess I should be grateful, right?

[/blue]

 

You're welcome then.

 

You are confusing the word actual. I am using the word to say that there are no actual infinites. A temporal regression of the past is not an actual infinite (i.e. it has not gone on forever). Instead' date=' it is a potential infinite, or more specifically, an actual potential infinite meaning that it is a collection built on successive addition. You are using the word actual to mean that the present is all there is and that the past does not exist; in other words it is not actual. But since I am using the word actual (only in a different sense) you are (unintentionally?) turning it around on me implying that I am saying that the past is not actual when in reality, it is you who is saying the past is not actual. DO you see what I mean?[/quote'][/blue]

 

It is my position that the past is not actual. I never meant to imply that was your position. It seemed pretty clear from your comment about WWI that you believe the past is actual.

 

Since the past is not actual, but is merely potential, it can in principle be infinite (negelecting the big bang for the moment) without violating "no actual infinities".

 

Only the future is potential. The past cannot be changed.

[/blue]

 

Potential' date=' in the sense I'm using it, does not rest on the ability to change. It's nothing more than a state that is consistent.

 

That is why the time is built by successive addition' date='[/quote'][/blue]

 

Says who?

 

Explain to me what you think time is.

[/blue]

 

If I could do that' date=' I'd win the Nobel prize.

 

Define past and present for me.

[/blue]

 

Since it is your argument that the past is actual' date=' why don't you define them instead.

 

So ask yourself this: If time is abstract' date=' like numbers – just something we use as a measurement, why would it be dependent on speed? [/quote'][/blue]

 

It is you who are claiming that time is based on succesive addition, i.e., treating time like numbers, not I. Time is an approximation, just as space is an approximation. Neither actually exist as far as we can tell. Spacetime is what actually exists.

 

By the way, how many moments of time are there in a 1 second interval?

 

The implication is that time is a property of the physical universe and therefore is an actual infinite.

[/blue]

 

Spacetime is the physical universe' date=' not merely merely a property of it. Whether the universe is infinite in some sense is unknown, and if it is, then it is also unknowable.

 

Now ask yourself this question; is causality also a property of the universe?

 

How is it discredited?

[/blue]

 

Are we reading the same thread?

 

- nothing' date=' including the universe as a whole, has ever been observed to "begin to exist"; the argument is discredited on that alone

 

- causality is a non-quantum property of the physical universe. To claim that the existence of the universe is dictated by an observed property of the universe itself is a categorical error; the argument is discredited on that alone

 

- The argument claims there can be no actual infinities, yet god has actually infinite properties; the argument is discredited on that alone

 

And show me an actual infinite.

[/blue]

 

I already did. Any number can be expressed as an actual infinite.

 

I don’t even know what this means. If you mean the limits of the past' date=' or the limits of time, then I have done that. The lower limit is the Big Bang.[/quote'][/blue]

 

Then we are in agreement. It is nonsense to speak of a cause for the big bang, since to do so implies the pre-existence of both time and causality.

 

What do you mean by arbitrarily large? The past is contained between the Big Bang and the present.

[/blue]

 

So we also agree that the universe has existed for all time? If so, then in what sense was its existence caused if there was no "before the universe"?

 

 

(what's going on with the quote feature?)

[Ouroboros]

spamandham,

 

I think there is a limit of 10 quotes per message, so I started using colors instead.

[Cerise]

You know, I read through all this and thought careful about what I would say in response but...

 

I realized something. All this debate presupposes that I actually care how the universe got here. Which, truth to be told, I really really don't.

 

So, I'm gonna go have a sandwich now. Have fun with!

[Ouroboros]

You know, I read through all this and thought careful about what I would say in response but...

 

I realized something.  All this debate presupposes that I actually care how the universe got here.  Which, truth to be told, I really really don't.

 

So, I'm gonna go have a sandwich now.  Have fun with!

 

But where did the sandwich come from?

[Cerise]

From whence the sandwhich came,

I don't care to see,

As to where it goes, well...

in my belly.

 

[Ouroboros]

From whence the sandwhich came,

I don't care to see,

As to where it goes, well...

in my belly.

 

 

Is that some kind of Poetic Justice,

Whilst I don’t have one and being hungry?

Well … guess I have to make my own,

It’s a way out of present quandary.

[thomas]

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.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

KCA is a trick for evangelizing, and it is very similar to the methods used in telemarketing.

[Zach]

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.

 

Xavier-

 

You made it clear that the infinite nature of God is not quantitative, correct? Then the following argument is appropriate:

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

 

2. God 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, God has a cause of its existence.

 

So... what caused God?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Space and time are one.  Time is intrinsic in our universe.  It is built into the fabric of space so to speak.  According to Newtonian physics space and time are separate; time being abstract.  Therefore, according to Newtonian physics, we could just go faster and faster eventually reaching the speed of light and then just keep on going. Time is not dependent on space, speed, or anything. But, we know that this is wrong.  In reality time is dependent on how fast you are going.  The closer you are to the speed of light, the slower you would appear to be going, if we could see you from earth. But you would not notice any difference in your action. Likewise, if you could travel at the speed of light, we, on earth, would see you as not moving.  Time would, in essence, stand still for you.  It would not progress.  This is what people mean when they say time does not exist outside the universe.

 

 

 

 

X-ray, above you seem to hold the same position that Han Solo, Spamandham, I and others have taken, i.e. that space and time are properties of the universe. Therefore it seems to me that you agree with the premises of the argument I sketched out several days ago, i.e.

 

 

1.  If X begins to exist, there was a time when X did not exist

2.  Time is a function of change

3.  Every instance of change occurs within space

4.  Space is a property of the universe

Therefore (skipping some steps) there is no time when the universe did not exist

Therefore the universe did not begin to exist

 

I agree with you that it's meaningful to talk about the age of the universe. I do not agree that we're talking about anything meaningful when we talk about time before the universe. So we have a problem with the word "beginning." The first premise of the Kalam Argument implies that the cause of the beginning is somehow "before" the beginning. As far as I see things now, you and I both appear to hold positions that imply that "before" cannot be said in the case of the universe.

[♦ ficino ♦]

X-ray, have you decided to abandon this thread?

[Ouroboros]

I think he's gone. Last post 6/1. Or he's busy and be back later.

[Saviourmachine]

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?

Yes, my question is: What is 'cause'? That's not mere semantics. If it's just a commonly order of observed phenomena, how can you be so sure that the concept "cause" itself is existential? How can you be sure the cosmos is "ruled" by causes in stead of (partly) indeterministic events? Does radioactive decay occur by chance or by cause?

 

I think 'cause' is a human concept. Mainly because our observations about time seem to be disfigured.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, my question is: What is 'cause'? That's not mere semantics. If it's just a commonly order of observed phenomena, how can you be so sure that the concept "cause" itself is existential? How can you be sure the cosmos is "ruled" by causes in stead of (partly) indeterministic events? Does radioactive decay occur by chance or by cause?

 

I think 'cause' is a human concept. Mainly because our observations about time seem to be disfigured.

 

Yeah, you're right in some sense, because Cause/Effect requires measurable time. Time as we know it, only exists in this universe, and is dependent of the physical laws here. So Cause/Effect on a time line where time doesn't exists...

 

The whole argument for First Cause and the Unmovable Mover etc is just moot, just because it's defined by the rules that only we can understand. So it all comes back to, do I believe because I'm emotional attached to have a belief, or don't I believe because I base it on reason instead of emotion.

[Saviourmachine]

Numbers are abstract entities.  They are tools used to desribe quantities of things and whatnotand take measurements.  If a number is real (corporeal), then go find one for me and send it to me.  I'll paypal the first person who finds a number for me $50.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I found the number three and one! It's called God, and it's called Jesus. If Jesus was corporeal you own me $50. :-) Thanks a lot!