The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[bornagainathiest]

Ah thank you Oddbird!

 

I was wondering when the concept of meaning was going to come up again in this thread.

The two questions I asked LNC on Oct 5 have to do with establishing and defining the meaning of his statements.

I look forward top his reply.

 

BAA.

 

Or even to his reply!

 

BAA

[NotBlinded]

LNC is back? Is amazed gone or something?

[bornagainathiest]

(Bump!)

 

Any chance that LNC could answer my questions of Oct 5 before the holiday season, please?

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

[LNC]

Hello again LNC.

 

Thank you for replying and I duly acknowledge the error I made concerning the third point about the KCA. Yes, I now understand that each Argument stands on it's own and I erred in thinking that the cumulative case you describe above was some kind of mutual dependency - if one Argument failed they all failed. I agree that this is not so.

 

However, your message does prompt me to ask two new questions.

 

1. After listing the Basic Argument's three points, your next paragraph includes the sentence, "Scientifically, the models and data that we now have indicate that the universe is past-infinite. i.e., it had a beginning." Yet later in your reply you say, "The Big Bang model seems to indicate that the universe began in the finite past." So which is it? Is it definitely indicated or seemingly indicated? I'm sure you'll agree that the two are not the same. One implies definite indication and the other indefinite indication, allowing the for possibility that competing models may be just as viable.

 

I should have said that the research indicates the universe is past-finite rather than infinite. My mistake. The research to my knowledge has not been shown to be erroneous or faulty.

 

2. You say that the cause had to be outside of matter, space and time. Agreed, terms like inside, outside, before and beyond are entirely valid in their use after the Big Bang event itself because the existence of the spacetime continuum is indicated by scientific data. But, I don't quite understand how terminology like this ( that rely on spacetime itself for their meaningful usage ) can be applied and used in such a definite way. "Had to be outside...", appears to me to be a definite statement of temporal and spatial location. Given that the very scientific models you cite indicate that time and space themselves did not exist in some timeless time and spaceless space, how can such terms be meaningfully used? I ask because of the wording of the Wikipedia description of the word Argument. See here...

 

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

 

"In logic, an Argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the Premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition) known as the Conclusion."

 

If, as you say, the KCA is an abductive Argument, then it must surely use language and terminology in a meaningful way to satisfy the conditions of what an abductive Argument can be? Meaningless language/terminology would surely result in meaningless Premises and a meaningless Conclusion? Perhaps you could clarify this issue?

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Those are good comments and legitimate. Let me rephrase it this way. If matter, space and time (i.e., the universe) were the result of the Big Bang, then it is logical to infer that the cause of the universe was immaterial, timeless and spaceless. Does that help? In this way, the conclusion follows the premises.

 

LNC

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again LNC.

 

Thank you for replying and I duly acknowledge the error I made concerning the third point about the KCA. Yes, I now understand that each Argument stands on it's own and I erred in thinking that the cumulative case you describe above was some kind of mutual dependency - if one Argument failed they all failed. I agree that this is not so.

 

However, your message does prompt me to ask two new questions.

 

1. After listing the Basic Argument's three points, your next paragraph includes the sentence, "Scientifically, the models and data that we now have indicate that the universe is past-infinite. i.e., it had a beginning." Yet later in your reply you say, "The Big Bang model seems to indicate that the universe began in the finite past." So which is it? Is it definitely indicated or seemingly indicated? I'm sure you'll agree that the two are not the same. One implies definite indication and the other indefinite indication, allowing the for possibility that competing models may be just as viable.

 

I should have said that the research indicates the universe is past-finite rather than infinite. My mistake. The research to my knowledge has not been shown to be erroneous or faulty.

 

2. You say that the cause had to be outside of matter, space and time. Agreed, terms like inside, outside, before and beyond are entirely valid in their use after the Big Bang event itself because the existence of the spacetime continuum is indicated by scientific data. But, I don't quite understand how terminology like this ( that rely on spacetime itself for their meaningful usage ) can be applied and used in such a definite way. "Had to be outside...", appears to me to be a definite statement of temporal and spatial location. Given that the very scientific models you cite indicate that time and space themselves did not exist in some timeless time and spaceless space, how can such terms be meaningfully used? I ask because of the wording of the Wikipedia description of the word Argument. See here...

 

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

 

"In logic, an Argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the Premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition) known as the Conclusion."

 

If, as you say, the KCA is an abductive Argument, then it must surely use language and terminology in a meaningful way to satisfy the conditions of what an abductive Argument can be? Meaningless language/terminology would surely result in meaningless Premises and a meaningless Conclusion? Perhaps you could clarify this issue?

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Those are good comments and legitimate. Let me rephrase it this way. If matter, space and time (i.e., the universe) were the result of the Big Bang, then it is logical to infer that the cause of the universe was immaterial, timeless and spaceless. Does that help? In this way, the conclusion follows the premises.

 

LNC

 

Hello LNC and thanks!

 

Yes, 'past-finite' certainly clarifies that point.

 

However, I'm having a little trouble with a number of other issues. I'll try and describe one of them.

 

Re-capping the the original format of the KCA, it reads as follows...

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.*

 

So, 1 and 2 are the Premises and 3 is the Conclusion, right?

The conclusion (3), as you say, follows the premises (1 & 2).

To be exact, the conclusion (3) is a logical inference from the premises (1 & 2).

However, surely the KCA ends at the red star * ?

The conclusion is that the universe had a cause...period.

 

When you say that it is logical to infer that the cause of the universe was immaterial, timeless and spaceless, aren't you making a second logical inference, this time from the original conclusion (3)?

As far as I can see, your second inference is not part of the original conclusion (3), because that declarative sentence terminated with the finding that the universe has a cause - nothing more.

 

To say anything about the cause would be to extend the KCA beyond it's one and only original conclusion (3) to include a new, fourth part.

Now I'm not saying that you can't do this LNC, but I strikes me that your fourth part shouldn't be declared to be part and parcel of the original KCA, which only has only two premises and one conclusion. If a second logical inference can be made, then why not a third, a fourth and so on? Then we will have the problem of not knowing where the KCA actually ends (concludes) and where a series of logical inferences take over.

 

Wouldn't it just be simpler and neater to say that the original conclusion of the KCA is that the universe had a cause and that anything else that is inferred or deduced from that conclusion is not part of the KCA?

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

BAA,

 

Check out Wes Morriston and his critique of Craig's Kalam. It will give you some ideas to why the whole argument is wrong.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,

 

Check out Wes Morriston and his critique of Craig's Kalam. It will give you some ideas to why the whole argument is wrong.

 

Thanks Ouroboros!

 

I've just found it. At first glance it looks (in Spock mode), f-a-s-c-n-a-t-i-n-g!

 

My 'trouble' with the KCA stems from what I see as a matter of definition as to where it's conclusion actually ends. As far as I can see, calling logical inferences made from the conclusion a part of the conclusion is a straightforward misrepresentation of the wording and meaning of the conclusion. By all means make them, but then don't backdate them and say that they are actually implied or inferred by the six words of the original conclusion. If that's allowed, then why not do the same with the two preceding premises? Either the agreed rules of language (correct word usage, diction, syntax, punctuation, etc.) apply in all parts of the KCA or they apply to none. If it's the former, then stick to the rules and be satisfied that a cause is indicated, but it's nature is unknown and undeclared. If it's the latter, then that's just a recipe for chaos and the deliberate destruction of meaning. Unless, of course, that's what you really want!

 

Thanks again.

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

My 'trouble' with the KCA stems from what I see as a matter of definition as to where it's conclusion actually ends.

A big problem is that the words are not defined strictly enough. The word "cause" is used loosely and allows a wide interpretation in the premise, but it is used in an extremely strict definition in the conclusion.

 

The "come into existence" isn't the same either. When we're talking about "come into existence" in normal time/space, it's really not about things just popping from nothing to something. In physics, generally things come into existence through rearrangement of existing matter. It's reconstructions and transformations of things, not *poof* and there it is. But on the other hand, the Universe come into existence is completely different, or, perhaps, it's not. Which is it?

 

Either the Universe wasn't a transformation of something pre-existing but came into existence from nothing, and KCA fails on comparison of the "come into existence."

 

Or the Universe came into existence in the same fashion as things do to us here, i.e we're talking about a pre-existing matter/space/time (of some kind), but then KCA fails on conclusion that the cause is the first cause since matter/space/time and pre-Universe-existing things did exist that are not the First Cause itself.

 

As far as I can see, calling logical inferences made from the conclusion a part of the conclusion is a straightforward misrepresentation of the wording and meaning of the conclusion. By all means make them, but then don't backdate them and say that they are actually implied or inferred by the six words of the original conclusion.

Since neither the premise nor the conclusion clearly explains what a cause is and how it works, the word leaves the loophole to play with the images people get in their mind when they hear the argument. They switch from one kind of causes to another kind, just to fit the words in the sentences. We do that as humans, and in other words, the KCA is a play with ambiguity and words.

 

If that's allowed, then why not do the same with the two preceding premises? Either the agreed rules of language (correct word usage, diction, syntax, punctuation, etc.) apply in all parts of the KCA or they apply to none. If it's the former, then stick to the rules and be satisfied that a cause is indicated, but it's nature is unknown and undeclared. If it's the latter, then that's just a recipe for chaos and the deliberate destruction of meaning.

Correct.

[Shyone]

It's funny how "laws of science" seem to get thrown out without much consideration.

 

Why not apply the laws that are established to extrapolate backwards instead of some ideas derived from the unknown?

 

1. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. (Law of Conservation of Energy)

2. All matter and energy are derived from previous matter and energy. (from #1)

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore the universe was not created and the substance of the universe is from already existing matter and energy.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

When I read about new developments in theoretical physics I notice that efforts are being directed at including quantum gravitational effects into relativity theory to show that the boundary conditions did not require either a singularity or a "beginning" in the usual sense of the word.

 

Basing philosophy on outdated theoretical physics is like talking about the structures supporting the "firmament" or the "force" driving the sun across the skies.

[Ouroboros]

When I read about new developments in theoretical physics I notice that efforts are being directed at including quantum gravitational effects into relativity theory to show that the boundary conditions did not require either a singularity or a "beginning" in the usual sense of the word.

Oh. Nice. I didn't know that.

 

Basing philosophy on outdated theoretical physics is like talking about the structures supporting the "firmament" or the "force" driving the sun across the skies.

Agree. That's what I think is the biggest problem with philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy and does good things too, but unfortunately many arguments are made based on a limited set of knowledge. Philosophy suffers SISO as much as anything else (Shit In Shit Out).

[LNC]

Hello LNC and thanks!

 

Yes, 'past-finite' certainly clarifies that point.

 

However, I'm having a little trouble with a number of other issues. I'll try and describe one of them.

 

Re-capping the the original format of the KCA, it reads as follows...

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.*

 

So, 1 and 2 are the Premises and 3 is the Conclusion, right?

The conclusion (3), as you say, follows the premises (1 & 2).

To be exact, the conclusion (3) is a logical inference from the premises (1 & 2).

However, surely the KCA ends at the red star * ?

The conclusion is that the universe had a cause...period.

 

Yes, that would be correct. 1 & 2 are the premises and 3 is the conclusion. Yes, that is the conclusion from which we go on to explore what type of cause would best explain the universe.

 

When you say that it is logical to infer that the cause of the universe was immaterial, timeless and spaceless, aren't you making a second logical inference, this time from the original conclusion (3)?

As far as I can see, your second inference is not part of the original conclusion (3), because that declarative sentence terminated with the finding that the universe has a cause - nothing more.

 

To say anything about the cause would be to extend the KCA beyond it's one and only original conclusion (3) to include a new, fourth part.

Now I'm not saying that you can't do this LNC, but I strikes me that your fourth part shouldn't be declared to be part and parcel of the original KCA, which only has only two premises and one conclusion. If a second logical inference can be made, then why not a third, a fourth and so on? Then we will have the problem of not knowing where the KCA actually ends (concludes) and where a series of logical inferences take over.

 

Wouldn't it just be simpler and neater to say that the original conclusion of the KCA is that the universe had a cause and that anything else that is inferred or deduced from that conclusion is not part of the KCA?

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

 

I don't see why it is problematic to go on from this argument to make inferences as to what could account for the cause of the universe. Surely, that is done throughout the philosophical and scientific disciplines. That is, we conclude that P is an effect of a cause, therefore, we go on to make inferences as to what type of cause would explain P. Once we have inferences or theories, we can go on to test them to find out whether we have the best explanation or whether a better one would arise. So, this would be a logical extension from the KCA. Why would we be satisfied to simply conclude that the universe, or anything else for that matter, has a cause without wanting to understand what that cause might be? So, though you may be technically correct, it seems to be cutting a very fine distinction that would leave us ignorant of many effects should we simply stop our investigation there.

 

I am not saying that we need to stop making inferences; however, we must also be willing to test those inferences to find out which is the best explanation of the effect. For example, if I were to leave my house with the doors and windows locked behind me only to return to find a dog inside upon my return that wasn't there when I left I would be able to make several possible explanations for its presence there. I could say that someone broke in and left the dog behind. I could say that someone must have a key to my house and let the dog in. I could say that maybe I forgot to lock a door and someone let the dog in. I could say that somehow the dog found its way in through an opening of which I was unaware. I could say that the dog popped into existence there from nowhere. I could say that it was a magic dog that could pass through solid objects, etc. All of these would be possible explanations until and unless I could eliminate them. Sure, they are all possible explanations, but one of them is probably the true explanation (unless I have missed that one) and some are better explanations than others. I could examine my house to eliminate some (look for evidence of break in or for an opening for which I was previously unaware, etc.)

 

The same can be the case for the existence of the universe. There are many possible explanations and one that is the correct one. Some are more plausible than others and we can eliminate those that are implausible to begin and narrow down our possibilities. However, as with the case of the dog in my house and also with the existence of the universe, we will have some that are more highly plausible than others and some that can be eliminated completely. Yet, in both cases, we should tend to favor the more plausible explanation over the less plausible ones.

 

LNC

[LNC]

BAA,

 

Check out Wes Morriston and his critique of Craig's Kalam. It will give you some ideas to why the whole argument is wrong.

 

After that you may want to read Craig's response to Morriston as he shows that Morriston didn't have as strong of a critique as you might think. You can find Craig's reply to Morriston here.

 

LNC

[LNC]

A big problem is that the words are not defined strictly enough. The word "cause" is used loosely and allows a wide interpretation in the premise, but it is used in an extremely strict definition in the conclusion.

 

The "come into existence" isn't the same either. When we're talking about "come into existence" in normal time/space, it's really not about things just popping from nothing to something. In physics, generally things come into existence through rearrangement of existing matter. It's reconstructions and transformations of things, not *poof* and there it is. But on the other hand, the Universe come into existence is completely different, or, perhaps, it's not. Which is it?

 

Either the Universe wasn't a transformation of something pre-existing but came into existence from nothing, and KCA fails on comparison of the "come into existence."

 

Or the Universe came into existence in the same fashion as things do to us here, i.e we're talking about a pre-existing matter/space/time (of some kind), but then KCA fails on conclusion that the cause is the first cause since matter/space/time and pre-Universe-existing things did exist that are not the First Cause itself.

 

I think that you are misrepresenting the argument. The term "come into existence" does not appear in the argument. Let me restate it for you:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

I think that the term, "begins to exist" is much more precise and less confusing and eliminates your objection. Since the universe consists of all matter, space and time, it also overcomes your problem of something coming into existence through the rearranging of preexisting matter, since there was no matter to rearrange itself. The rest of your objections simply presuppose the existence of matter and physical laws, which is begging the question. If you presuppose the past-eternal existence of matter you still have to address other issues such as the entropy problem, the problem of an actualized infinite, why we have not experienced heat death, why we see a larger universe than would have been the product of a multiverse, etc.

 

Since neither the premise nor the conclusion clearly explains what a cause is and how it works, the word leaves the loophole to play with the images people get in their mind when they hear the argument. They switch from one kind of causes to another kind, just to fit the words in the sentences. We do that as humans, and in other words, the KCA is a play with ambiguity and words.

 

You haven't given evidence that Craig or anyone else is using the words of the argument definitionally different from premise to conclusion, you have simply asserted that. Again, I think you are playing word games and begging the question. The words of the argument are used consistently throughout.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

I think that you are misrepresenting the argument. The term "come into existence" does not appear in the argument. Let me restate it for you:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Okay, so change the term "come into existence" to "begins to exist" and my argument still stands.

[Ouroboros]

After that you may want to read Craig's response to Morriston as he shows that Morriston didn't have as strong of a critique as you might think. You can find Craig's reply to Morriston here.

 

LNC

Weak counter argument, and Wes's argument still stands.

 

Why?

 

Because "cause" is a temporal verb. All our experience, and the premise, is based on our experience of temporal, material, and spatial causes. Hence, to bring in a non-temporal, immaterial, and non-spatial cause at the twist-ending is invalid, unless you can prove that non-temporal, immaterial, and non-spatial causes exist.

 

But I don't care to discuss this with you anymore. We've done our deal. I only shared my view with another member and gave him some ideas.

 

Take it or leave it, that's up to you.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello LNC and thanks!

 

Yes, 'past-finite' certainly clarifies that point.

 

However, I'm having a little trouble with a number of other issues. I'll try and describe one of them.

 

Re-capping the the original format of the KCA, it reads as follows...

 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.*

 

So, 1 and 2 are the Premises and 3 is the Conclusion, right?

The conclusion (3), as you say, follows the premises (1 & 2).

To be exact, the conclusion (3) is a logical inference from the premises (1 & 2).

However, surely the KCA ends at the red star * ?

The conclusion is that the universe had a cause...period.

 

Yes, that would be correct. 1 & 2 are the premises and 3 is the conclusion. Yes, that is the conclusion from which we go on to explore what type of cause would best explain the universe.

 

When you say that it is logical to infer that the cause of the universe was immaterial, timeless and spaceless, aren't you making a second logical inference, this time from the original conclusion (3)?

As far as I can see, your second inference is not part of the original conclusion (3), because that declarative sentence terminated with the finding that the universe has a cause - nothing more.

 

To say anything about the cause would be to extend the KCA beyond it's one and only original conclusion (3) to include a new, fourth part.

Now I'm not saying that you can't do this LNC, but I strikes me that your fourth part shouldn't be declared to be part and parcel of the original KCA, which only has only two premises and one conclusion. If a second logical inference can be made, then why not a third, a fourth and so on? Then we will have the problem of not knowing where the KCA actually ends (concludes) and where a series of logical inferences take over.

 

Wouldn't it just be simpler and neater to say that the original conclusion of the KCA is that the universe had a cause and that anything else that is inferred or deduced from that conclusion is not part of the KCA?

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

 

Thanks for your reply LNC.

 

I don't see why it is problematic to go on from this argument to make inferences as to what could account for the cause of the universe. Surely, that is done throughout the philosophical and scientific disciplines. That is, we conclude that P is an effect of a cause, therefore, we go on to make inferences as to what type of cause would explain P. Once we have inferences or theories, we can go on to test them to find out whether we have the best explanation or whether a better one would arise. So, this would be a logical extension from the KCA. Why would we be satisfied to simply conclude that the universe, or anything else for that matter, has a cause without wanting to understand what that cause might be? So, though you may be technically correct, it seems to be cutting a very fine distinction that would leave us ignorant of many effects should we simply stop our investigation there.

 

Please don't get me wrong here, LNC. Like you, I'm very much in favor of using philosophy and science to investigate these matters. It's not at all problematic to go on from the conclusion of the KCA, provided we are careful about what we call, 'the conclusion of the KCA' and what we call, 'logical inferences made from the conclusion of the KCA'. You see, my current beef centers on wether on not any logical inferences can be made under any circumstances from the bald facts of the conclusion - that the universe has a cause. If I am technically correct about the closure of the KCA's conclusion but I still want to investigate further, what are my options? Persist in trying to get the KCA to give up something that it cannot? Other avenues of research and exploration (via logical inference or other means) are still available - just not here. Imho, the KCA has served it's purpose well and provided an end result. Now we can move on to other areas of investigation, confident that the universe has a cause. All that's needed is for us to make sure that our wording when we are describing what constitutes the conclusion of the KCA and what doesn't. Being technically correct in this way, we can be satisfied that we have explored the options to the our best to ability, while satisfying the strict criteria this mode of investigation calls for.

 

Now, to show that I'm open to fresh approaches and new ideas, how about this?

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, let me present a hypothetical case. Let's say that the KCA gave us a different conclusion. Suppose that it's conclusion was that the universe was without cause. That is, past-infinite and eternal. (Yes. I know it doesn't conclude with that answer, but bear with me please.) Would it then make any sense for us to work in denial of this answer and diligently, relentlessly search for a definite beginning or point of origin? What would be the point of that exercise? None, I'm sure you'll agree. Likewise, persisting with logical inferences from the KCA, after it's done it's job must be an equally fruitless pursuit. I hope we converge on this.

I am not saying that we need to stop making inferences; however, we must also be willing to test those inferences to find out which is the best explanation of the effect. For example, if I were to leave my house with the doors and windows locked behind me only to return to find a dog inside upon my return that wasn't there when I left I would be able to make several possible explanations for its presence there. I could say that someone broke in and left the dog behind. I could say that someone must have a key to my house and let the dog in. I could say that maybe I forgot to lock a door and someone let the dog in. I could say that somehow the dog found its way in through an opening of which I was unaware. I could say that the dog popped into existence there from nowhere. I could say that it was a magic dog that could pass through solid objects, etc. All of these would be possible explanations until and unless I could eliminate them. Sure, they are all possible explanations, but one of them is probably the true explanation (unless I have missed that one) and some are better explanations than others. I could examine my house to eliminate some (look for evidence of break in or for an opening for which I was previously unaware, etc.)

 

A good illustration and point well made.

I hope you'll see that it's also a point well taken too.

We agree that all possible explanations must be examined, but only one of them is the true one. Elimination of the impossible yields the possible. Conversely, recognition and acknowledgment of what is possible and what is impossible is an equally valuable and valid tool in explorations of this kind. This is where adherence to strict criteria of wording, meaning and understanding are called for. Logical inferences made under correct conditions yield helpful results. Inferences made where none are possible yield erroneous results.

 

The same can be the case for the existence of the universe. There are many possible explanations and one that is the correct one. Some are more plausible than others and we can eliminate those that are implausible to begin and narrow down our possibilities. However, as with the case of the dog in my house and also with the existence of the universe, we will have some that are more highly plausible than others and some that can be eliminated completely. Yet, in both cases, we should tend to favor the more plausible explanation over the less plausible ones.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Plausible explanations should be striven for and we also agree that there is just one explanation. Anything else would be a recipe for chaos!

 

LNC

 

I opened up this thread in the hope of learning more about the KCA and with your help and the input of other members, I've been able to do just that. Now that it's been clearly resolved that the KCA positively and unequivocally identifies the certainty of a cause for this universe, but has nothing whatsoever to say about what this cause might be, I'd like to thank you for your valuable assistance.

 

All the best,

 

BAA.

[Shyone]

I opened up this thread in the hope of learning more about the KCA and with your help and the input of other members, I've been able to do just that. Now that it's been clearly resolved that the KCA positively and unequivocally identifies the certainty of a cause for this universe, but has nothing whatsoever to say about what this cause might be, I'd like to thank you for your valuable assistance.

 

All the best,

 

BAA.

I would argue that the question of a cause is one of physics, not philosophy.

 

While physics can seem quite confusing to some, and the mathematics absolutely strange, the question of a cause may already be answered, and the answer is, "Maybe, maybe not."

 

In a few years, that may be refined a bit.

 

Mystery, however, to me at least, does not imply anything more than something we do not know, and something we should continue to research rather than a matter that we should concede to the philosophers.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Since this is the Coliseum and not the Den, I'll try to avoid stating my opinion and just stick with repetitious logic, not that so many others in this thread haven't already tried that.

 

I will put my questions to LNC in red text. The rest is only for him to think about.

 

LNC keeps saying:

 

God existed ... prior to the universe existing.

 

Time began when the universe began. Would you agree with that statement?

 

LNC wrote:

 

If matter, space and time (i.e., the universe) were the result of the Big Bang, then it is logical to infer...

 

Ah, I see that you would. Ok, then.

 

Since you yourself say that "space and time (i.e., the universe)" began simultaneously, how could anything happen "prior" to the universe existing? That's the same as saying "prior" to time existing, but in order to have something happen "prior" to time existing, there would have to be TIME before time existed.

 

Prior to time = time before time.

 

How can anything happen "prior" to the universe, if time began when the universe began? How can you not see the error in this logic? In order for something to happen "prior" to something else, there has to be time in between the "prior" and the "something else". Here, the "something else" is the beginning of time, and nothing can happen before time.

 

Ok, enough repetition. Here's the question...

 

LNC, can you please explain how anything can happen "prior" to the beginning of time?

 

I do have a problem with the concept of "beginning of time", but logic dictates that nothing could happen before time existed, if there ever was a beginning to it. Perhaps it was extremely slow for a while, or perhaps it always existed in one form or another, just as the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy dictates that matter and energy can't be destroyed nor created, but only change form.

 

 

 

LNC wrote:

 

Yes, when I raise my finger or type on my computer, I decide and then I act. ... If you believe that everything is spontaneous, then your words are meaningless because you had no control over them or intention to type what you did, it is just a spontaneous and meaningless string of letters on my screen.

And yet, you believe that God's decision to create the universe was spontaneous with its creation.

 

1) If you believe that everything is spontaneous, then

2) your words are meaningless.

 

1) If you believe that God's decision to create the universe was spontaneous with its creation, then

2) God's creation is __________.

 

LNC, please fill in that blank with the one word that logically follows.

 

 

LNC wrote:

 

Are you saying that the laws of nature have no purpose? If so, how are you defining purpose? It seems that they serve a tremendous purpose as without them we would not exist.

We (humans) just happen to exist, because the laws just happen to be what they are, and things just happened to progress the way they did. If the laws were any different, something else would exist instead of us. You seem to base your assumptions on the mistaken belief that the universe was created for humans, but that just isn't the case. The universe is what it is, and we are just products of our environment.

 

Our planet is just one of countless products of our universe. Eventually, conditions on this planet became favorable for some type of life, some stuff came together by some means, and whatever things were formed by that stuff began to replicate themselves. This would be the first life. From there, life evolved and branched out in so many different ways over billions of years, and will continue to do so until this planet is destroyed or is otherwise uninhabitable. Currently, humans happen to be here, because our ancestors were able to adapt and survive in their environments and continued to reproduce. With a little micro-evolution here and a little micro-evolution there, multiplied by millions of years, our descendants may eventually evolve into one or more other species, or our lineage may die out, but the universe will continue long after that.

 

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of billions of other planets out there (if not more), not to mention moons and other planetary bodies, where life may also exist. Conditions on some of those planetary bodies may be similar to earth and may be home to other carbon-based life forms, while conditions elsewhere may be completely different, yet have "perfect conditions" for other types of life that are not carbon-based.

 

The universe was not made for us. We are merely products of our environment, and our "purpose" is whatever we want it to be.

LNC, if you saw an irregularly-shaped hole in the ground filled with ice, would you believe the hole was made to fit around the ice so perfectly? Or, would you believe the ice got its shape from the hole?

 

Now, try to apply that ice analogy to us and the universe. The hole is the universe, while the ice is us.

[LNC]

It's funny how "laws of science" seem to get thrown out without much consideration.

 

Why not apply the laws that are established to extrapolate backwards instead of some ideas derived from the unknown?

 

1. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. (Law of Conservation of Energy)

2. All matter and energy are derived from previous matter and energy. (from #1)

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore the universe was not created and the substance of the universe is from already existing matter and energy.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

When I read about new developments in theoretical physics I notice that efforts are being directed at including quantum gravitational effects into relativity theory to show that the boundary conditions did not require either a singularity or a "beginning" in the usual sense of the word.

 

Basing philosophy on outdated theoretical physics is like talking about the structures supporting the "firmament" or the "force" driving the sun across the skies.

 

Apparently, there is a flaw with your extrapolation as the best evidenced model for the origin of the universe, the Big Bang model posits that the universe had a beginning. Since the universe contains all matter, energy and space, then it seems that they were created. Where I believe your logic goes wrong is that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, that is, within our present universe energy cannot be created or destroyed. However, it does not speak to the origin of the universe as the laws of thermodynamics did not exist until the universe came into being. So, again your logic falls short in that it does not match up with what we know scientifically since the model shows that the universe came into being with the Big Bang and the universe contains all matter, energy and space.

 

Could you point to the research that shows that the boundary conditions didn't require a singularity? I think you actually may have some outdated material as Guth, Vilenkin and Borde have shown that a singularity cannot be avoided in their research. I think it was Hawking that posited the theory that you have cited, but that has been shown to be an invalid assumption by the research to which I have referred.

 

Also, ad hominem doesn't serve as arguments either, so unless you can cite actual research and data, you may want to avoid these types of statements, they don't serve to advance the discussion.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I think that you are misrepresenting the argument. The term "come into existence" does not appear in the argument. Let me restate it for you:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Okay, so change the term "come into existence" to "begins to exist" and my argument still stands.

 

Actually, it doesn't as you equivocate on the meaning of begins to exist. By the term, one doesn't mean that existing stuff reorganizes into another thing. The meaning is that nothing exists and then something exists and that the something requires a cause. This is the foundation of science and if you wish to deny the principle of causality you will rip the foundation out from underneath scientific inquiry. If you wish to posit eternally existing matter or energy, you will have to show how physics is alterer to allow for this as if violates entropy. You will also have to explain how the existence of an instantiated infinity can overcome the logical contradictions that would arise. In other words, you have a lot of explaining to do if you want to assert that matter and energy is past-eternal.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

Actually, it doesn't as you equivocate on the meaning of begins to exist.

Has nothing to do with my argument.

 

By the term, one doesn't mean that existing stuff reorganizes into another thing.

It doesn't, but it should, because that's how things come into existence in our world.

 

Nothing in our world comes into existence ex nihilo. Things are just things composed of other things. Nothing really begin to exist in that categorical way the premise makes it to be.

 

The meaning is that nothing exists and then something exists and that the something requires a cause.

It requires many causes, and something that exists can exists in many different ways.

 

This is the foundation of science and if you wish to deny the principle of causality you will rip the foundation out from underneath scientific inquiry.

The premise is stated wrong and based on incomplete understanding of existence and cause.

 

If you wish to posit eternally existing matter or energy, you will have to show how physics is alterer to allow for this as if violates entropy.

I didn't post eternally existing matter or energy. I'm not sure where you got that from.

 

You will also have to explain how the existence of an instantiated infinity can overcome the logical contradictions that would arise.

Has nothing to do with my argument.

 

In other words, you have a lot of explaining to do if you want to assert that matter and energy is past-eternal.

Has nothing to do with my argument that the Kalam premise is wrong.

 

To point to faults and errors in the premise is not the same as proposing the opposite of the conclusion.

[LNC]

Weak counter argument, and Wes's argument still stands.

 

Why?

 

Because "cause" is a temporal verb. All our experience, and the premise, is based on our experience of temporal, material, and spatial causes. Hence, to bring in a non-temporal, immaterial, and non-spatial cause at the twist-ending is invalid, unless you can prove that non-temporal, immaterial, and non-spatial causes exist.

 

But I don't care to discuss this with you anymore. We've done our deal. I only shared my view with another member and gave him some ideas.

 

Take it or leave it, that's up to you.

 

Nice, toss out a weak reply that is logically fallacious and then cut off the conversation. However, if you wish to continue the conversation, can you explain why your assertion is true? Yes, cause is a temporal verb and effects are also temporal events. The universe coming into existence was a temporal event and the efficient cause (let's say God's willing it into existence for the sake of argument) was a temporal event, but that does not mean that the formal cause was temporal (nor does it logically have to be.) So, your objection is baseless as it confuses and conflates types of causes.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I opened up this thread in the hope of learning more about the KCA and with your help and the input of other members, I've been able to do just that. Now that it's been clearly resolved that the KCA positively and unequivocally identifies the certainty of a cause for this universe, but has nothing whatsoever to say about what this cause might be, I'd like to thank you for your valuable assistance.

 

All the best,

 

BAA.

 

I think you are actually mistaken in your conclusion. We have established that the universe (all matter, energy, space and time) is caused and that the cause cannot consist of matter, energy, space or time since that would be self-causation, which is logically fallacious. So, actually we can draw some conclusions about the cause based upon the argument itself.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

Nice, toss out a weak reply that is logically fallacious and then cut off the conversation.

It's not a logical fallacy. You just accuse me of a fallacy to discredit my post.

 

 

However, if you wish to continue the conversation, can you explain why your assertion is true?

If you understood my argument, you would understand why my assertion is right.

 

Yes, cause is a temporal verb and effects are also temporal events. The universe coming into existence was a temporal event and the efficient cause (let's say God's willing it into existence for the sake of argument) was a temporal event, but that does not mean that the formal cause was temporal (nor does it logically have to be.) So, your objection is baseless as it confuses and conflates types of causes.

Never mind. We've discussed this so many times and we're of different opinions. I side with one group of philosophers, you side with the other, and we can't agree on the interpretations of words. Simple as that.

[LNC]

I would argue that the question of a cause is one of physics, not philosophy.

 

While physics can seem quite confusing to some, and the mathematics absolutely strange, the question of a cause may already be answered, and the answer is, "Maybe, maybe not."

 

In a few years, that may be refined a bit.

 

Mystery, however, to me at least, does not imply anything more than something we do not know, and something we should continue to research rather than a matter that we should concede to the philosophers.

 

Shy,

 

One cannot do science (physics or otherwise) without philosophy, so I think you have set up a false dichotomy. Causality is a philosophical principle that undergirds science and I would challenge you or anyone else to practice scientific investigation without using the principle - it won't work. We also have logic, identity and other philosophical principles that are foundational to science. Science itself is a discipline that came out of philosophy, as did mathematics.

 

So, you say that the answer to cause is, "maybe, maybe not." Do you apply that to all of science? Maybe causality applies in this case, but certainly not in that case? If so, you are tossing out science completely based upon your a priori commitments (a truly unscientific position to take.)

 

The other aspect of science that you need to keep in mind is to have an open mind to all possible explanations. One should not limit potential explanations on the grounds of religious commitments (whether it be theism or atheism).

 

LNC