The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[bornagainathiest]

Hello.

 

I've just joined today and this is my first post - so please be lenient if I'm making some horrible error.

 

My question is for any Christians using this forum.

 

What is your opinion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument as proposed by William Lane Craig? Some Christians I've talked to consider it to be a bona fide proof of God's existence, others think it just provides support for Christianity.

 

Here's a link about it.

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Argument

 

For the record, I was an Evangelical Christian before rejecting Jesus as a false God. Please do not let this information influence your reply. I would much rather you discuss the Kalam and not the fate of my immortal soul.

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

 

 

p.s.

Yes, I know I've misspelt it - that's just a private joke.

[Deva]

Good luck in trying to get Christian participation.

 

The first part of the argument from http://www.leaderu.c...h/3truth11.html

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its

existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

 

I am not as educated in science as I would like to be but even to my layman's eyes these are both highly questionable to say the least.

Especially number 2. There are too many possibilities. I think that the universe in some form may have existed always. How can it be proven that our universe is the only one?

 

As a side note, I am always surprised when Christians try to use science to uphold their faith. It just doesn't support Christianity without tortuous twisting of either the science or the Christian doctrine.

[Ouroboros]

LNC, a Christian we have here, is a huge supporter of the Kalam argument.

[Guest Davka]

From the Wikipedia link, the cosmological argument:

 

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

Perhaps. As far as we have thus far seen, this appears to be the case.

 

2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

Perhaps. See #1.

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

Says who? This is where the argument breaks down entirely.

 

4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

If #3 were a given, then yes. But #3 is not a given, so there is no argument.

 

 

The Kalam cosmological argument:

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Perhaps. As far as we have thus far seen, this appears to be the case.

 

2. The Universe began to exist.

Says who? This is where the argument breaks down entirely.

 

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Again, the argument is based on unproven assertions.

 

Both are badly flawed arguments. We do not know whether an infinite chain of causation exists; neither do we know whether the Universe began to exist or has always existed.

[Ouroboros]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Perhaps. As far as we have thus far seen, this appears to be the case.

I think it goes wrong already here. Most of the time, or actually all the time, whatever begins to exist have multiple causes. Nothing comes to be in a vacuum, not even on the quantum level does it seem like an event is untied. The spooky thing Einstein didn't like comes to mind. Particles are connected, and if I create something, it's because I have something to work with, and usually idea are built on influence from multiple sources. So really, reality would suggest Many First Causes, rather than One. One First Cause would be a sheer unsupported assumption designed to fit the conclusion.

 

2. The Universe began to exist.

Says who? This is where the argument breaks down entirely.

Well, Big Bang is considered the start of the Universe, but we can't be 100% sure Big Bang is the real answer to how the Universe started. Other theories are gaining ground. So I agree, this premise is a bit shaky. However, Craig uses the Hotel Paradox to argue that actual infinite can't exist in the past, for a natural universe that is.

 

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Again, the argument is based on unproven assertions.

If the premises are correct, it would be a correct conclusion. But I think there's another problem in the conclusion. The "Universe" does include time and space, meaning, "cause" is undefined before the Universe existence. It's like divide by zero. Can't be done. Invalid operation. There can't be a "cause" before "cause-and-effect" comes into being. So for it to work, we have to invent a new kind of "time-space" universe, with it's own "cause-and-effect" outside of our Universe, which the syllogism doesn't take into consideration.

[LNC]

Hello.

 

I've just joined today and this is my first post - so please be lenient if I'm making some horrible error.

 

My question is for any Christians using this forum.

 

What is your opinion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument as proposed by William Lane Craig? Some Christians I've talked to consider it to be a bona fide proof of God's existence, others think it just provides support for Christianity.

 

Here's a link about it.

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Argument

 

For the record, I was an Evangelical Christian before rejecting Jesus as a false God. Please do not let this information influence your reply. I would much rather you discuss the Kalam and not the fate of my immortal soul.

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

 

 

p.s.

Yes, I know I've misspelt it - that's just a private joke.

 

I am a Christian and find that the Kalam argument is quite compelling. In fact, it is the discussion topic that brought me to this site for the first time last year. I don't use this argument to as a proof for Christianity, but is is a valid argument for the existence of God, and can even be used to argue for a personal and intelligent God.

 

I am curious about one of your comments that you rejected Jesus as a false God, yet call yourself a born again atheist. Do you consider the possibility that God exists but have rejected Jesus as that God; or do you hold that God does not exist in which case Jesus wouldn't be a false God, since there is no God in your eyes? Just trying to correlate your statements.

[Deva]

I am curious about one of your comments that you rejected Jesus as a false God, yet call yourself a born again atheist. Do you consider the possibility that God exists but have rejected Jesus as that God; or do you hold that God does not exist in which case Jesus wouldn't be a false God, since there is no God in your eyes? Just trying to correlate your statements.

 

For cripes sake what is unclear about "born again atheist"? The OP said he rejected Jesus as a false God, amongst all others. Good grief LNC, even you can't be that dense.

 

Atheist = no god, Jesus being false or otherwise. The person says "No Gods" on their profile. Give me a break.

[NotBlinded]

If the premises are correct, it would be a correct conclusion. But I think there's another problem in the conclusion. The "Universe" does include time and space, meaning, "cause" is undefined before the Universe existence. It's like divide by zero. Can't be done. Invalid operation. There can't be a "cause" before "cause-and-effect" comes into being. So for it to work, we have to invent a new kind of "time-space" universe, with it's own "cause-and-effect" outside of our Universe, which the syllogism doesn't take into consideration.

Couldn't it be possible that time doesn't really exist? Chef posted an article about that. To me, time is just another measurement we use to distinguish between seemingly different events. We use this to determine events that happen at extremely fast intervals and some that take years and years. Can we suppose that in nature, time doesn't really exist and that there are no separate events at all? This would mean that cause and effect are one. They aren't separate events. The big bang and what transpired were (and still are) the same event. This wouldn't necessitate something happening outside of our Universe then. For every action taken, ie cause, the effect is innate in the cause. Also, many times an effect initiates a cause. Future events cause us to act. We need food, so we go to the store or something along those lines. It's not really one or the other, but both. Maybe?

[LNC]

Good luck in trying to get Christian participation.

 

The first part of the argument from http://www.leaderu.c...h/3truth11.html

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its

existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

 

I am not as educated in science as I would like to be but even to my layman's eyes these are both highly questionable to say the least.

Especially number 2. There are too many possibilities. I think that the universe in some form may have existed always. How can it be proven that our universe is the only one?

 

As a side note, I am always surprised when Christians try to use science to uphold their faith. It just doesn't support Christianity without tortuous twisting of either the science or the Christian doctrine.

 

No luck required, someone just had to tell me the thread was going on.

 

Actually, some of the best physicists and cosmologists (Borde, Vilenkin, Guth) have concluded through their research that the universe could not be past eternal. Regarding the possibility of a multiverse, I would say that it is possible; however, it doesn't get us around the problem that Borde, Vilenkin and Guth discovered in that the meta-universe could not be past eternal. There is also the logical problem of spanning a past eternal series of events in that we would never arrive at today (a terminus). So, I think the idea of a past eternal universe has many insurmountable problems.

[LNC]

From the Wikipedia link, the cosmological argument:

 

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

Perhaps. As far as we have thus far seen, this appears to be the case.

 

2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

Perhaps. See #1.

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

Says who? This is where the argument breaks down entirely.

 

4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

If #3 were a given, then yes. But #3 is not a given, so there is no argument.

 

Can you explain why the argument breaks down at #3?

 

The Kalam cosmological argument:

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Perhaps. As far as we have thus far seen, this appears to be the case.

 

2. The Universe began to exist.

Says who? This is where the argument breaks down entirely.

 

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Again, the argument is based on unproven assertions.

 

Both are badly flawed arguments. We do not know whether an infinite chain of causation exists; neither do we know whether the Universe began to exist or has always existed.

 

Can you show evidence that the universe is not finite? Again, I think you pronounce the argument defeated without doing more than making an assertion. You need to make an argument and give evidence for you argument. An assertion will not do.

 

If the universe is finite, as many scientists assert (seem my previous post), then it is not an unproven assertion. You have not given any more than your opinion regarding the status of the argument, but I have no reason to believe that you have an actual case. Maybe you could expound on your ideas and show your evidence for your assertions.

[LNC]

I think it goes wrong already here. Most of the time, or actually all the time, whatever begins to exist have multiple causes. Nothing comes to be in a vacuum, not even on the quantum level does it seem like an event is untied. The spooky thing Einstein didn't like comes to mind. Particles are connected, and if I create something, it's because I have something to work with, and usually idea are built on influence from multiple sources. So really, reality would suggest Many First Causes, rather than One. One First Cause would be a sheer unsupported assumption designed to fit the conclusion.

 

Does that mean that everything must have multiple causes? Could you give an example of something that has multiple causes? Do you mean that it has linearly multiple causes or multiple concurrent causes? I would like to understand what you mean by this.

 

When you say that nothing comes to be in a vacuum, what is your evidence for this? Do you mean a true vacuum or a vacuum within space and time? I agree with you about your assessment on the quantum level as many assume that quantum fluctuations occurring in a quantum vacuum means that it is a true vacuum, which it is not as it contains quantum energy from which the fluctuations come. I don't think you have quite made your case for many first causes as you seem to commit the composition fallacy. Because A and B had multiple causes (suppose), then C must have multiple causes. I don't think that necessarily follows. Therefore, your conclusion of one first cause being unsupported assumption is an unsupported conclusion.

 

Well, Big Bang is considered the start of the Universe, but we can't be 100% sure Big Bang is the real answer to how the Universe started. Other theories are gaining ground. So I agree, this premise is a bit shaky. However, Craig uses the Hotel Paradox to argue that actual infinite can't exist in the past, for a natural universe that is.

 

So far, Big Bang is the best supported model out there. I don't think any others have even gotten much support and many have been abandoned. The evidence seems to widely support Big Bang. Which other theories do you believe are gaining ground and who is supporting them?

 

Hilbert's Hotel is a valid defeater argument to an actual instantiated infinite. I don't think that this argument has been successfully challenged. I just checked what was out on Google to see what was out there and saw one attempt that doesn't seem to hold up. I am sure there are others; however, Hilbert poses some difficult paradoxes with an actually instantiated infinite. Still, I think a past infinite universe (or series of multiverses) still has other problems both scientific and logical.

 

If the premises are correct, it would be a correct conclusion. But I think there's another problem in the conclusion. The "Universe" does include time and space, meaning, "cause" is undefined before the Universe existence. It's like divide by zero. Can't be done. Invalid operation. There can't be a "cause" before "cause-and-effect" comes into being. So for it to work, we have to invent a new kind of "time-space" universe, with it's own "cause-and-effect" outside of our Universe, which the syllogism doesn't take into consideration.

 

I would be interested in seeing more of your evidence that you rely upon to try to defeat Kalam. So, if you can post these alternate models and their adherents, I would be interested in interacting (again) on them with you. I don't see a problem with the concept of cause coming into existence with time and space, there seems to be no logical reason why that could not be. The same could be said of time and space, they didn't exist causally prior to the universe, but came into existence with the universe. I see no reason that another time-space continuum needs to be invented for this. If you don't agree with me, maybe you could go into more detail as to why you believe this must be the case.

[LNC]

I am curious about one of your comments that you rejected Jesus as a false God, yet call yourself a born again atheist. Do you consider the possibility that God exists but have rejected Jesus as that God; or do you hold that God does not exist in which case Jesus wouldn't be a false God, since there is no God in your eyes? Just trying to correlate your statements.

 

For cripes sake what is unclear about "born again atheist"? The OP said he rejected Jesus as a false God, amongst all others. Good grief LNC, even you can't be that dense.

 

Atheist = no god, Jesus being false or otherwise. The person says "No Gods" on their profile. Give me a break.

 

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the term "born again atheist" just saying that it doesn't seem to coincide with someone who says that Jesus is a false "God". To be a "false" God implies that there is a "true" God and that Jesus isn't he. I hope that clears it up for you.

[Guest Davka]

From the Wikipedia link, the cosmological argument:

 

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

Perhaps. As far as we have thus far seen, this appears to be the case.

 

2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

Perhaps. See #1.

3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

Says who? This is where the argument breaks down entirely.

 

4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

If #3 were a given, then yes. But #3 is not a given, so there is no argument.

 

Can you explain why the argument breaks down at #3?

Because it is an unsupported presupposition. It is not a "given" that a causal chain cannot be of infinite length. The reality is that we do not know whether there was a first cause or whether a first cause was needed. And in the event that it is proven that there absolutely must be a first cause (and Hawking has come damned close), this is not even close to a proof for "god." A First Cause need not be a god, or even a self-aware being of any kind.

 

As I proved on another thread, the introduction of God is in violation of Occam's Razor. But you can't address that, because it would involve admitting that you were wrong.

The Kalam cosmological argument:

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Perhaps. As far as we have thus far seen, this appears to be the case.

 

2. The Universe began to exist.

Says who? This is where the argument breaks down entirely.

 

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Again, the argument is based on unproven assertions.

 

Both are badly flawed arguments. We do not know whether an infinite chain of causation exists; neither do we know whether the Universe began to exist or has always existed.

 

Can you show evidence that the universe is not finite?

 

I don't need to. Asking me to prove a negative is a logical fallacy. You cannot show evidence that the Universe is either finite or infinite. These are unresolved questions. The Kalam argument is based on an unproven assertion. If you cannot prove that the Universe is either infinite or finite, then Kalam's argument has no merit.

[LNC]

Couldn't it be possible that time doesn't really exist? Chef posted an article about that. To me, time is just another measurement we use to distinguish between seemingly different events. We use this to determine events that happen at extremely fast intervals and some that take years and years. Can we suppose that in nature, time doesn't really exist and that there are no separate events at all? This would mean that cause and effect are one. They aren't separate events. The big bang and what transpired were (and still are) the same event. This wouldn't necessitate something happening outside of our Universe then. For every action taken, ie cause, the effect is innate in the cause. Also, many times an effect initiates a cause. Future events cause us to act. We need food, so we go to the store or something along those lines. It's not really one or the other, but both. Maybe?

 

If time doesn't exist, then cause and effect don't either as time is the measure of change and, as Chef said, events. What are events, simply effects of causes. I think what you are proposing is a world of illusion, but even that would be an effect of a cause. I see no way to get around causality given what you laid out, it still ends up there. I also don't see how you can get to backward causality unless you assume a B theory of time, which I think has its own logical problems. Star Trek was good at pointing out some of those problems as they would travel back in time and try not to disturb the events; however, they never seemed to discuss that their mere presence there did disturb the events of the past and therefore, would have altered the future. I found it interesting that they never really dealt with that problem, but then again, it was T.V. doing philosophy, not philosophy doing T.V.

[LNC]

Can you explain why the argument breaks down at #3?

 

Because it is an unsupported presupposition. It is not a "given" that a causal chain cannot be of infinite length. The reality is that we do not know whether there was a first cause or whether a first cause was needed. And in the event that it is proven that there absolutely must be a first cause (and Hawking has come damned close), this is not even close to a proof for "god." A First Cause need not be a god, or even a self-aware being of any kind.

 

As I proved on another thread, the introduction of God is in violation of Occam's Razor. But you can't address that, because it would involve admitting that you were wrong.

 

Can you give an example of how an beginningless series of events could exist? Shouldn't we be able to produce a perpetual motion machine, given this? Yet, we have the problem of entropy that seems to be insurmountable in our universe. If there is a need for a first cause, and I believe that science is pointing us to a finite universe (or multiverse, if you prefer) then it would require a timeless, spaceless, intelligent, and personal cause. Timeless and spaceless as they didn't exist causally prior to the universe; intelligent as we see a universe that seems to have intelligence programmed into it; and personal because there was no existing impersonal forces that would have been able to start things in the finite past (the cause and effect would have had to come into existence simultaneously, which would beg the question of from where that cause came).

 

I don't need to. Asking me to prove a negative is a logical fallacy. You cannot show evidence that the Universe is either finite or infinite. These are unresolved questions. The Kalam argument is based on an unproven assertion. If you cannot prove that the Universe is either infinite or finite, then Kalam's argument has no merit.

 

Proving that the universe is not finite is not proving a negative, it is proving a positive assertion that the universe is past-eternal. You merely have to look at the other side of the coin on this one. Yes, I believe that there is plenty of evidence that scientists are providing that point to a finite universe. We have evidence such as red-shift, entropy, we have scientists looking at issues like inflation, spatial distributions and the possibility of negative energy. Plenty of work is being done in this area and I believe that it is pointing heavily toward a finite universe.

 

So, your conclusion that Kalam is based upon unproven assertions does not hold up. You may want to do some more reading in the field of cosmology and physics and also better understand the arguments on which Kalam is based before making these types of statements. You may also want to listen to or watch some of Craig's debates with leading philosophers and scientists to see how the argument holds up when challenged. I think you will be surprised as Craig generally does extremely well in these situations.

[Ouroboros]

First of all, the post wasn't for you, but I will make an attempt to answer you anyway. I think you benefit more to debate the person who started this thread than to constantly hound me. Why, I wonder, do you find it so intriguing to take on my views each and every time? There's plenty of other people here you know. Perhaps it's my crass rudeness that titillates your speculative mind?

 

Does that mean that everything must have multiple causes? Could you give an example of something that has multiple causes?

The text on the screen is caused by my fingers, or my brain, or my hands, or the keyboard signals, or Mac OSX sending the signals to the LCD screen, or my mind making the decision, or my parents being born. Which cause is THE cause to the letters showing up on my screen? It all interconnects. Why do they show up right now, and not before, or later? Because I stood two minutes longer than usual at one traffic light. I left work 5 minutes to 6 PM, approximately. I had to turn of the light in the hallway, and I took one more steps, and bit slower than usual. It all influence the outcome. Not one cause, not one reason, but many.

 

Do you mean that it has linearly multiple causes or multiple concurrent causes? I would like to understand what you mean by this.

Lets say you and I play pool. For fun you decide to put your que-stick down and hit the que-ball at the same time as I do it. The ball will take a path which is caused by both our actions. No just mine, not just yours, but both. So what was the first cause for the que-ball to move that particular direction. What about gravity, friction, weight...? Is nothing part of the physical effects all these things cause? It's only your mind that cause things to happen? No. All of it is entangled.

 

When you say that nothing comes to be in a vacuum, what is your evidence for this? Do you mean a true vacuum or a vacuum within space and time?

Vacuum as a colloquial phrase, meaning, not single, solo, alone, but inside a framework of many things.

 

 

I agree with you about your assessment on the quantum level as many assume that quantum fluctuations occurring in a quantum vacuum means that it is a true vacuum, which it is not as it contains quantum energy from which the fluctuations come. I don't think you have quite made your case for many first causes as you seem to commit the composition fallacy. Because A and B had multiple causes (suppose), then C must have multiple causes. I don't think that necessarily follows. Therefore, your conclusion of one first cause being unsupported assumption is an unsupported conclusion.

Sure. Some things can perhaps have one cause. But reality points mostly to multiple. Why does an amoeba eat another amoeba? Because God told it to? Or because there are plenty of different chemical reactions and "needs" raising up inside it. All working together to one complete event.

 

When the que-ball ralls. There are trillions of molecules rotating in that ball. The surface molecules are moving in proximity to the tablecloth molecules. Some move, some deflect, some "protest" and it all cases friction. So which molecule cause the que-ball to hit the 8-ball at an exact angle and position as it did? Molecule 59824135b or 5234626633a? Who knows. Perhaps they all contributed to the effect of that particular position of the hit?

 

So far, Big Bang is the best supported model out there. I don't think any others have even gotten much support and many have been abandoned. The evidence seems to widely support Big Bang. Which other theories do you believe are gaining ground and who is supporting them?

I think the ekpyrotic model has gained some interest. It was submitted to one of the publications for Cosmologists, after a debate about its validity. My understanding is that some think there might be something to it.

 

Hilbert's Hotel is a valid defeater argument to an actual instantiated infinite. I don't think that this argument has been successfully challenged. I just checked what was out on Google to see what was out there and saw one attempt that doesn't seem to hold up. I am sure there are others; however, Hilbert poses some difficult paradoxes with an actually instantiated infinite. Still, I think a past infinite universe (or series of multiverses) still has other problems both scientific and logical.

So does an infinite past God, unless God is timeless, spaceless, and just a fixed state of void. How can God be existing outside of the Hilbert's Hotel paradox? How can God's mind, intellect, ideas, decisions, reasoning be outside the same parameters? You have never given a good explanation to that either.

 

If God can exist outside time and space and be infinite, then a multiverse can too. That's the idea of the multiverse. It's the natural environment for the timeless, infinitely powerfull God of yours. The multiverse is the home of God.

 

I would be interested in seeing more of your evidence that you rely upon to try to defeat Kalam.

Evidence? I didn't mention evidence? Where's your evidence that God exists? Don't bring up stupid counter arguments. We're talking about an argument, not evidence.

 

So, if you can post these alternate models and their adherents, I would be interested in interacting (again) on them with you. I don't see a problem with the concept of cause coming into existence with time and space, there seems to be no logical reason why that could not be. The same could be said of time and space, they didn't exist causally prior to the universe, but came into existence with the universe. I see no reason that another time-space continuum needs to be invented for this. If you don't agree with me, maybe you could go into more detail as to why you believe this must be the case.

Is this statement correct: God caused the Universe to exist, before time and space existed?

 

And while you're at it, explain why "First Cause" = "God"? First Cause to me is a non-sentient event, while God is playing with the idea of sentience. Why is "First Cause" the same as something that thinks, wants, wills, speaks, and act? Again with the first premise, everything in nature points to that causes can be sentient as well as non-sentient, so there is nothing in the syllogism that confirms that "First Cause" is the same as sentience. Please explain.

[Ouroboros]

Couldn't it be possible that time doesn't really exist? Chef posted an article about that. To me, time is just another measurement we use to distinguish between seemingly different events. We use this to determine events that happen at extremely fast intervals and some that take years and years. Can we suppose that in nature, time doesn't really exist and that there are no separate events at all? This would mean that cause and effect are one. They aren't separate events. The big bang and what transpired were (and still are) the same event. This wouldn't necessitate something happening outside of our Universe then. For every action taken, ie cause, the effect is innate in the cause. Also, many times an effect initiates a cause. Future events cause us to act. We need food, so we go to the store or something along those lines. It's not really one or the other, but both. Maybe?

What can I say. I can only agree. The abstract concept of "time" is very much reliant on cause-and-effect, because we measure time in how nature is changing. The watch is showing time based on springs and mechanics following physical laws. The atom clock is set by nuclear events, etc. Time is like you say a measurement, and that's what Einstein realized that these measurements and movements will slow down when the object increase in speed. So time will effectually almost stop. Gravity affects it too. And Earths rotation around the sun, the Sun's gravity, our solarsystems motion in space too, and the galaxy, etc... all of it changes what we experience as time right here, right now. If we were able to fly out to the deep space between the galaxies and be in "rest" between those two, perhaps our atom-clock wouldn't even measure the same as the Earth one. Just rambling here...

[NotBlinded]

Couldn't it be possible that time doesn't really exist? Chef posted an article about that. To me, time is just another measurement we use to distinguish between seemingly different events. We use this to determine events that happen at extremely fast intervals and some that take years and years. Can we suppose that in nature, time doesn't really exist and that there are no separate events at all? This would mean that cause and effect are one. They aren't separate events. The big bang and what transpired were (and still are) the same event. This wouldn't necessitate something happening outside of our Universe then. For every action taken, ie cause, the effect is innate in the cause. Also, many times an effect initiates a cause. Future events cause us to act. We need food, so we go to the store or something along those lines. It's not really one or the other, but both. Maybe?

 

If time doesn't exist, then cause and effect don't either as time is the measure of change and, as Chef said, events. What are events, simply effects of causes. I think what you are proposing is a world of illusion, but even that would be an effect of a cause. I see no way to get around causality given what you laid out, it still ends up there.

What I am saying is that a Newtonian view of cause and effect sees realty as being something that has to have a mover. In this view, nature cannot be the mover because it is nothing but created matter, or fully automatic mechanical forces. In the view I propose, there are no cue balls, only cue sticks because the intelligence is innate in reality. They are intergral parts of the same event. The mover isn't separate from the what is moved.

 

What I think I'm trying to say is that existence and non-existence rely on each other to even be. Would this necessitate that everything always was, no beinging and no end? It might, I'm not sure. Cause and effect are two ways of looking at the same event.

 

It's late for me and I'm suffering brain-drain. I'll have to see if I can think this through better.

[Ouroboros]

Well, NBBTB, I get it.

 

I think it's a good point. The framework in motion, where cause and effect are just two sides of the coin, interrelated and inseparable.

 

A "cause" outside of that framework isn't a "cause" in natural sense, since it's not part of the framework. So "cause" as a conclusion doesn't fit, since "First Cause" is the supposed non-natural cause, while premise one is based solely on natural causes.

[NotBlinded]

Can you give an example of how an beginningless series of events could exist? Shouldn't we be able to produce a perpetual motion machine, given this? Yet, we have the problem of entropy that seems to be insurmountable in our universe. If there is a need for a first cause, and I believe that science is pointing us to a finite universe (or multiverse, if you prefer) then it would require a timeless, spaceless, intelligent, and personal cause. Timeless and spaceless as they didn't exist causally prior to the universe; intelligent as we see a universe that seems to have intelligence programmed into it; and personal because there was no existing impersonal forces that would have been able to start things in the finite past (the cause and effect would have had to come into existence simultaneously, which would beg the question of from where that cause came).

 

This is all understood from the presuppostion that the universe is unintelligent in its own right and adds that extra step to existence. Programmed intelligence? Are you programmed? Does this program control your heart beat or is there intelligence in the body?

[Guest Davka]

Can you give an example of how an beginningless series of events could exist?

The example would appear to be the Universe itself.

Shouldn't we be able to produce a perpetual motion machine, given this? Yet, we have the problem of entropy that seems to be insurmountable in our universe.

Are you familiar with the concept of the Big Crunch?

 

 

If there is a need for a first cause, and I believe that science is pointing us to a finite universe (or multiverse, if you prefer) then it would require a timeless, spaceless, intelligent, and personal cause.

 

Pure speculation. Neither intelligence nor personality are necessary for a first cause. Lighting strikes with no intelligent hand guiding it - there are, in fact, far more examples of causes without intelligence in the Universe than causes which proceed from intelligence.

Timeless and spaceless as they didn't exist causally prior to the universe; intelligent as we see a universe that seems to have intelligence programmed into it; and personal because there was no existing impersonal forces that would have been able to start things in the finite past (the cause and effect would have had to come into existence simultaneously, which would beg the question of from where that cause came).

More speculation and opinion. You are arguing from a conclusion.

I don't need to. Asking me to prove a negative is a logical fallacy. You cannot show evidence that the Universe is either finite or infinite. These are unresolved questions. The Kalam argument is based on an unproven assertion. If you cannot prove that the Universe is either infinite or finite, then Kalam's argument has no merit.

 

Proving that the universe is not finite is not proving a negative, it is proving a positive assertion that the universe is past-eternal.

 

Nice try. "NOT" + something = negative.

 

You merely have to look at the other side of the coin on this one.

 

As do you.

 

Plenty of work is being done in this area and I believe that it is pointing heavily toward a finite universe.

 

Science is not a set of belief-statements.

 

You may want to do some more reading

 

Look, asshole, this line of crap is getting very, very old. YOU are an ignorant sack of shit, and you dodge questions and refuse to admit it when you are wrong. Until you are ready to admit how totally and completely full of shit you were on the Occam's Razor question, I don't want to see you tell ME to "read more" on any subject at all.

 

DO NOT talk down to me, you pathetic fuck. Capisce?

 

*edited to tone it down a bit, believe it or not*

[Ouroboros]

You may want to do some more reading

 

Look, asshole, this line of crap is getting very, very old. YOU are an ignorant sack of shit, and you dodge questions and refuse to admit it when you are wrong. Until you are ready to admit how totally and completely full of shit you were on the Occam's Razor question, I don't want to see you tell ME to "read more" on any fucking subject at all.

 

DO NOT talk down to me, you pathetic fuck. Capisce?

LNC, do you see how your insinuation causes reactions like this? Your statement above is a sly way of ad hominem. And I think you're doing it on purpose, which means that you are trolling for reactions. And if you are trolling for reactions, you are a troll. So stop it. Or I will pick up the ad-hom ax again and go to town with it.

 

You see, when you say something like "You may want to do some more reading," you are in effect doing an ad hominem, because you are accusing the other person of not knowing these things and hence being wrong. You attack the person instead of the argument.

 

So what do you say? Should we go at the personal attack approach again? If you want me to quit, then you better quit. But obviously this is way above your head, it would take someone with IQ 10 or more to understand, so sorry that you won't get it.

[LNC]

First of all, the post wasn't for you, but I will make an attempt to answer you anyway. I think you benefit more to debate the person who started this thread than to constantly hound me. Why, I wonder, do you find it so intriguing to take on my views each and every time? There's plenty of other people here you know. Perhaps it's my crass rudeness that titillates your speculative mind?

 

I did respond to him/her if you have noticed and I don't mean to hound you, I am simply responding to posts here and yours are among them (and you mention me in your first post). I merely answer the posts in order, I am not playing favorites or trying to pick on anyone. You responded to Davka who put up a general post (not directed at anyone in particular) as did I; however, you seem to defend Davka'a positions which I did not, so I thought it important to respond to yours as well. I actually find you more interesting to interact with when you leave the crass rudeness aside.

 

[quot]

The text on the screen is caused by my fingers, or my brain, or my hands, or the keyboard signals, or Mac OSX sending the signals to the LCD screen, or my mind making the decision, or my parents being born. Which cause is THE cause to the letters showing up on my screen? It all interconnects. Why do they show up right now, and not before, or later? Because I stood two minutes longer than usual at one traffic light. I left work 5 minutes to 6 PM, approximately. I had to turn of the light in the hallway, and I took one more steps, and bit slower than usual. It all influence the outcome. Not one cause, not one reason, but many.

 

I think you are discussing different types of causes (material, efficient, formal and final); however, there can only be one final cause for the words being on your screen and that is you purposing them to be there. All of the other causes are directed by you to that end. I believe that the same would hold for the universe, there is only one final cause.

 

Lets say you and I play pool. For fun you decide to put your que-stick down and hit the que-ball at the same time as I do it. The ball will take a path which is caused by both our actions. No just mine, not just yours, but both. So what was the first cause for the que-ball to move that particular direction. What about gravity, friction, weight...? Is nothing part of the physical effects all these things cause? It's only your mind that cause things to happen? No. All of it is entangled.

 

Yes, but again, you are the final cause in this case and you are still addressing a linear series of events or effects that come from your decision to hit the ball.

 

Vacuum as a colloquial phrase, meaning, not single, solo, alone, but inside a framework of many things.

 

I take it that you mean that the vacuum exists in a framework of many things. However, is that necessary that a vacuum exist inside the framework of other things? Isn't that begging the question?

 

Sure. Some things can perhaps have one cause. But reality points mostly to multiple. Why does an amoeba eat another amoeba? Because God told it to? Or because there are plenty of different chemical reactions and "needs" raising up inside it. All working together to one complete event.

 

When the que-ball ralls. There are trillions of molecules rotating in that ball. The surface molecules are moving in proximity to the tablecloth molecules. Some move, some deflect, some "protest" and it all cases friction. So which molecule cause the que-ball to hit the 8-ball at an exact angle and position as it did? Molecule 59824135b or 5234626633a? Who knows. Perhaps they all contributed to the effect of that particular position of the hit?

 

I don't know that I would agree with your assessment when it comes to distinguishing down to a final cause. In that case, I think we can narrow most effects down to one final cause. Certainly, an effect that I create can be altered along the way by someone else; however, these events or effects would still have a single formal cause for the most part. However, I think it is important to identify the type of cause that you are addressing when discussing this topic as it can become convoluted very easily.

 

I think the ekpyrotic model has gained some interest. It was submitted to one of the publications for Cosmologists, after a debate about its validity. My understanding is that some think there might be something to it.

 

I find the Ekpyrotic model to be much more speculative than the standard Big Bang model as it is based upon string theory which is far from being verified. In fact, it is somewhat doubtful that string could ever be verified, at least, it seems not to be likely in our lifetimes. It appears to be more of a mathematical theory than an actual scientific theory and would seem to require a whole new mathematics and physics to entail. I think the interest in the theory may be from those who like a challenge.

 

So does an infinite past God, unless God is timeless, spaceless, and just a fixed state of void. How can God be existing outside of the Hilbert's Hotel paradox? How can God's mind, intellect, ideas, decisions, reasoning be outside the same parameters? You have never given a good explanation to that either.

 

If God can exist outside time and space and be infinite, then a multiverse can too. That's the idea of the multiverse. It's the natural environment for the timeless, infinitely powerfull God of yours. The multiverse is the home of God.

 

Why do you figure that? God is an immaterial being who is not constrained by the limitations of actualizing a physical instantiated infinite. God existed before time in a timeless state, which does not violate the logic that would be violated by an instantiated physical infinite. So, again there is no violation of the logic of Hilbert's Hotel with an immaterial God existing in a timeless state causally prior to the existence of the universe. Upon creating the universe, some believe that God entered into space and time, which would make sense since Jesus did enter into space, matter, and time.

 

The multiverse is different in that it is a physical existence which entails time and that is where the logical problems come into play. So, I don't think that positing a multiverse gets you past the logical problem or the problem of physics.

 

Evidence? I didn't mention evidence? Where's your evidence that God exists? Don't bring up stupid counter arguments. We're talking about an argument, not evidence.

 

Sorry, I thought we were here to discuss the Kalam argument. Arguments are made up of premises and a conclusion. Premises are valid only if they have evidential support. You appeared to be supportive of Davka's replies countering the premises of Kalam which would imply that you have reasons to counter the premises, which would imply that you have evidence in support of those reasons. So, it seems that my request is perfectly valid in asking what evidence you have to support your opposition to the premises of Kalam, unless you are just basing it on a priori assumptions or believes apart from evidence. Let me know.

 

Is this statement correct: God caused the Universe to exist, before time and space existed?

 

And while you're at it, explain why "First Cause" = "God"? First Cause to me is a non-sentient event, while God is playing with the idea of sentience. Why is "First Cause" the same as something that thinks, wants, wills, speaks, and act? Again with the first premise, everything in nature points to that causes can be sentient as well as non-sentient, so there is nothing in the syllogism that confirms that "First Cause" is the same as sentience. Please explain.

 

No, the statement is not correct. God caused the universe to exist concurrent with it coming into existence.

 

Why must a first cause be a non-sentient event? I don't see that as necessarily following. Again, you are probably conflating the different definitions of cause and when I discuss cause, I am specifically referring to final cause. However, the first cause had to have been able to will the universe into existence a finite time ago as the universe is not infinitely old according to our measurements. If the first cause were non-sentient, the cause and the effect would have been concurrent in existence as the cause would have no will to delay the effect or "choose" a different time for the effect. An inanimate object which is not in motion will not take on the property of motion without another causal agent according to Plato and Aristotle, the object would remain at rest. That is why it is logical to posit a personal agent.

[Guest Davka]

. . . and crickets once again.

 

LNC, you are a coward. You are incapable of admitting when you are wrong.

[Ouroboros]

I think you are discussing different types of causes (material, efficient, formal and final); however, there can only be one final cause for the words being on your screen and that is you purposing them to be there. All of the other causes are directed by you to that end. I believe that the same would hold for the universe, there is only one final cause.

Okay, lets say I accept that. Different causes, and first cause is only one thing, and then you intend to say that my mind is the first cause of the letters to show up on the screen? I'm purposing them to be there.

 

So then, that means that the "First Cause" to those letters on the screen are me, and not God. How does fit in into the Kalam Argument? If everything is caused by God as the First Cause, but here we have letters on the screen that I was the first cause of, how is that possible? Which premise cover that situation?

 

 

Yes, but again, you are the final cause in this case and you are still addressing a linear series of events or effects that come from your decision to hit the ball.

Like you said, first cause and final cause are not the same thing. Both you and are are first causes. We acted simultaneous.

 

I take it that you mean that the vacuum exists in a framework of many things. However, is that necessary that a vacuum exist inside the framework of other things? Isn't that begging the question?

"Nothing exists in a vacuum" or "Nothing happens in a vacuum" is intended to mean that you have to have a framework for things to exist and happen. It's not a question about a vacuum in the scientific sense.

 

I don't know that I would agree with your assessment when it comes to distinguishing down to a final cause. In that case, I think we can narrow most effects down to one final cause. Certainly, an effect that I create can be altered along the way by someone else; however, these events or effects would still have a single formal cause for the most part. However, I think it is important to identify the type of cause that you are addressing when discussing this topic as it can become convoluted very easily.

All the different small things are all together causing the final cause, that is so. Meaning, no one single first cause is the one and only cause for it all. All of them affecting the outcome. The all are part of the final cause. No one thought or planned each particle to be where they were, but they all contributed to the final cause.

 

I find the Ekpyrotic model to be much more speculative than the standard Big Bang model as it is based upon string theory which is far from being verified.

In your opinion sure, but that wasn't the question. You're not an astrophysicist, scientist, or a theoretical cosmologist. You don't quantum physics better than the experts, so your opinion if you like it or not is useless in this context.

 

In fact, it is somewhat doubtful that string could ever be verified, at least, it seems not to be likely in our lifetimes. It appears to be more of a mathematical theory than an actual scientific theory and would seem to require a whole new mathematics and physics to entail. I think the interest in the theory may be from those who like a challenge.

Doubtful? Who cares if the question was if there is an alternative theory which is gaining grounds. You asked. I answered. If you don't like what scientists say doesn't really matter. It's just your speculations. Your opinion and view doesn't change the fact that this theory has gained interest. You're confusing the issue (perhaps on purpose?).

 

 

Why do you figure that? God is an immaterial being who is not constrained by the limitations of actualizing a physical instantiated infinite. God existed before time in a timeless state, which does not violate the logic that would be violated by an instantiated physical infinite. So, again there is no violation of the logic of Hilbert's Hotel with an immaterial God existing in a timeless state causally prior to the existence of the universe. Upon creating the universe, some believe that God entered into space and time, which would make sense since Jesus did enter into space, matter, and time.

 

The multiverse is different in that it is a physical existence which entails time and that is where the logical problems come into play. So, I don't think that positing a multiverse gets you past the logical problem or the problem of physics.

Who says the multiverse is a physical existence in the same way as our universe? The theory of the multiverse as universe-bubbles where each universe have different physical laws, doesn't mean the multiverse follows the same laws as our universe. The multiverse corresponds to your God-space. Timeless. Infinite.

 

 

Sorry, I thought we were here to discuss the Kalam argument. Arguments are made up of premises and a conclusion. Premises are valid only if they have evidential support. You appeared to be supportive of Davka's replies countering the premises of Kalam which would imply that you have reasons to counter the premises, which would imply that you have evidence in support of those reasons. So, it seems that my request is perfectly valid in asking what evidence you have to support your opposition to the premises of Kalam, unless you are just basing it on a priori assumptions or believes apart from evidence. Let me know.

The argument is that the premise was without evidence. How can I bring evidence to the fact of something not having evidence? You want me to cut out the hole in the donut and prove that it exists???

 

No, the statement is not correct. God caused the universe to exist concurrent with it coming into existence.

So the cause and the first quantum event are the same?

 

Why must a first cause be a non-sentient event? I don't see that as necessarily following. Again, you are probably conflating the different definitions of cause and when I discuss cause, I am specifically referring to final cause. However, the first cause had to have been able to will the universe into existence a finite time ago as the universe is not infinitely old according to our measurements. If the first cause were non-sentient, the cause and the effect would have been concurrent in existence as the cause would have no will to delay the effect or "choose" a different time for the effect. An inanimate object which is not in motion will not take on the property of motion without another causal agent according to Plato and Aristotle, the object would remain at rest. That is why it is logical to posit a personal agent.

 

And I don't see it necessarily follow that a cause is sentient because it is first in the events of the Universe. It does not follow.

 

Basically, if I understand you right is, that a "Personal agent" as a mind without a body? You're postulating that it must be a mind because it can't be a "thing"? It can't be a thing because a thing requires a cause, and eventually in the uttermost beginning it must be a mind. A mind without body. Without time. Without space. Without a first cause. Without a final cause. Without formal cause. Without efficient cause. I think it's fiction. Where did this mind get the energy from? Where did it get space, matter, time from when it created everything? From nothing?