Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Kalam Cosmological Argument


bornagainathiest

Recommended Posts

Pure speculation? Again, you simply toss out these statements without a shred of backing. The best of big bang cosmology not only points to the beginning of the universe approximately 13.7 billion years ago, but also points to the idea that a new physics would be required to get around this idea. So, no, it is not "pure speculation" as you say. How would you get around intelligence or personality being characteristics of the first cause? Lighting strikes are merely effects within the already existing universe, but this example seems to have nothing to do with explaining how all matter, space and time came into being. Can you give me an explanation of how an effect could happen if there is no physical cause as the physical world did not exist? Check out what Borde, Vilenking and Guth have to say about this (see, Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete)

 

LNC,

 

Have you ever read any Quentin Smith? Read this paper especially because it deals with the Kalam argument.

 

I'm going to suggest again that cause and effect are one and the same only separated by measuring changes with another measurement we call time.

 

Anyway, check out some of Dr. Smith's writtings.

 

Here is an excerpt with the assumption that the universe must have a cause:

 

The history of science also gives us cases of mutual, simultaneous causation. Newton’s theory provides an uncontroversial example. We can think of a possible world where an instantaneous or ‘infinitely fast’ gravitational force is the only factor that causally affects the motion of bodies. (For example, we can imagine smaller bodies, such as moons, orbiting larger bodies, such as planets.) There is an instantaneous gravitational attraction between two moving bodies at the instant t. Each body’s infinitesimal state of motion at the instant t is an effect of an instantaneous gravitational force exerted by the other body at the instant t. In this case, the infinitesimal motion of the first body is an effect of an instantaneous gravitational force exerted by the second body, and the infinitesimal motion of the second body is an effect of an instantaneous gravitational force of the first body. This is a case of the existence of a state S1 being caused by another state S2, with the existence of S2 being simultaneously caused by S1.

 

If it is physically possible, actual or necessary that some states of bodies or particles are instantaneously caused to begin to exist by other such states, then this is both metaphysically possible and logically possible. Suppose we have a first state of the universe that consists of the initial temporal part (initial state) of three particulars (e.g., elementary particles). Let us call the three initial states or temporal parts of the three particles the states a, b and c. (For simplicity’s sake, we shall adopt a ‘geni-identical’ theory of objects, namely, that objects are not enduring particulars but a succession of causally connected temporal parts (states, events).) The temporal part or state a of one of the particles instantaneously causes the state b to begin to exist, b instantaneously causes c to begin to exist, and c instantaneously causes a to begin to exist. This causal loop obtains at the first instant of time, t = 0.

 

In this case, the universe begins to exist, is caused to begin to exist, but is not caused to begin to exist by God or any other cause(s) external to the universe. Perhaps it is worth spelling this out in detail. The universe at t = 0 is nothing other than the particles’ temporal parts a and b and c. Each of these time-slices of the particles is caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, namely, by one of the time-slices or states of one of the other three particles. If the universe at t = 0 is a, b and c, and a, b and c are each caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, it follows that the universe is caused to begin to exist, but not by anything external to the universe. The universe is self-caused in the sense that each part of the universe is caused to exist by some other part of the universe.

The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to Exist

 

Oh, I found this part enlightening. :)

 

The theist cannot at this point insist that any cause of the universe’s beginning to exist must exist earlier than the universe, for the theist typically holds that God’s act of causing the universe to begin to exist did not occur earlier than the universe’s first state. The theist typically says that God timelessly causes the universe to begin to exist or simultaneously causes the universe to begin to exist. Some theists, like Swinburne, hold that God exists in a metrically amorphous time that exists earlier than the first state of the universe, but this is not the usual theist position. Traditionally, the theists are much more sympathetic than atheists to the theory that causes need not exist earlier than their effects.

 

IMO, God is not something that is separate from the universe itself. It is all. It is the I AM in your language. It is the beginning and the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • LNC

    131

  • Ouroboros

    92

  • NotBlinded

    65

  • Shyone

    64

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think that my statement was out of line when you look at Davka's posts. They have no evidential support, but yet, he makes very sweeping statements that I don't believe fit with the best scientific findings. I also didn't make the statement as an insult, nor did I intend for it to be taken as such. So, if someone takes something that I said wrong, I don't know that I am completely to blame. I have done a lot of reading in this field and also listened to lectures, debates, and checked out other resources in this field. If someone suggested that I should do more reading, I would be inclined to ask for references from the person to see if they have sources of which I am not familiar. That is not an ad hominem. His name calling, however, was the equivalent of an ad hominem.

I think you should study more, because I think you really don't know these things at all.

 

Do you support Davka's conclusions and statements? If so, maybe you could give me your defense of them. Cite reference material to back them up and scholars who hold them. I am not interested in an exchange of personal opinions, I want to exchange peer reviewed scholarship on this and I haven't gotten that from Davka. So, if that comes across as a personal attack, then sorry, I will stop posting on this thread. I have said before that I am not interested in merely exchanging opinions, and certainly not interested in trading insults.

I think you haven't studied enough and should try to get a little bit more knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always looked down on the Cosmological argument as just a glorified God of the Gaps. It takes an unknown variable ( That causes cannot be infinite, which by the way we know is false at least in the mathematical sense due to irrational numbers. ) asserts it to be true, and then asserts that the cause is xian God. Not the great Dwarf, Not a currently unknown scientific inquiry, Not Aliens, Not Krishna, Not Allah, Not the Deist God, Not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but clearly it must be the God of the Christian Bible. This kind of argument has been debunked a thousand times. Even if the first assertions to the cosmological argument were true, the correct and honest answer would still be "I don't know".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Hello again.

 

Well I can see that the KCA has been talked over a lot here already, but, as the initiator of this thread and a newbie to boot, could I politely request some help in understanding this Argument better?

I would have liked LCN's input, but, if that's not to be - then so be it.

 

Here's my reason for asking.

When I was a born-again evangelical Christian I was aware of the KCA, I read about it and discussed it with my fellow Christians. Yet, I was taught that while it provided support for Christianity, it did not actually prove the existence of the Christian God. My primary focus for proof was the Resurrection. I learned, accepted and believed that all of Christianity stood or fell on the historical reality of that event. So, while the KCA was a useful support - that's all it was. Instead, I was encouraged to keep my eyes and my focus directly on Jesus.

 

Now that I am an Atheist I find that the KCA has gained much more importance and regularly crops up in discussions with Theists and Christians. This puzzles me because more and more Christians seem to be using it to "prove" the basis of what they believe. Since the KCA was never designed to be a proof I've therefore decided to dig deeper and explore why this is. Hence this thread. I simply want to understand more, ok?

 

Anyway, here are some questions regard the KCA. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks.

 

1. What kind of Argument is the KCA? http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument This Wikipedia page lists Deductive, Inductive, Defeasible and Analogical Arguments. Presumably the KCA is one of these?

 

2. I see that the Premises and Conclusion of an Argument are defined as, "Truthbearers". I find the Wikipedia explanation of this term difficult to grasp. How does one go about verifying the "truth" of a truthbearing Premise and/or Conclusion? Help please!

 

3. I've read that the KCA is used to support the Teleological Argument (for a Designed Universe) and the Moral Argument (for a Moral Lawgiver). Without the KCA establishing an Uncaused Cause there can be no Designer and no Moral Lawgiver. Is this conclusion correct?

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why Christian apologist had to dig into Islamic theology to bolster a rather poor argument. Why are they allowed to do that? Why couldn't they sit down and come up with something much stronger philosophically.

 

I also find it funny that we need to learn about God's existence FIRST, accept his reality SECOND and learn the deep philosophy THIRD. If God was already an entity that could be seen and understood, why is he hiding and letting us run around trying to find ways to prove and disprove his existence.

 

This ideas alone render the God of the Bible as an irrational precept, further 96% of the known universe is made of dark matter and dark energy, which shows that the universe really is uninhabitable for human life. I can cite other examples, too.

 

I have to wonder, how can a Christian honestly look at all the evidence in the universe and say this is a hospitable place to live. It is not and it proves to me that we are designed to be part of the universe, not seperate from it.

 

Furthermore, how can an apologist really use science to defend their case if their religion is DIRECTLY REVEALED to some, but not others. Hmmmmmm...seems to me you all have a PR problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What kind of Argument is the KCA? http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument This Wikipedia page lists Deductive, Inductive, Defeasible and Analogical Arguments. Presumably the KCA is one of these?

It's a deductive argument. It takes a general premise and break it down to a specific conclusion. That's why the argument is so compelling. Because if the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow. However the problem is that the premises are a bit shaky, and the Theist interpret the conclusion to be something more than it is.

 

2. I see that the Premises and Conclusion of an Argument are defined as, "Truthbearers". I find the Wikipedia explanation of this term difficult to grasp. How does one go about verifying the "truth" of a truthbearing Premise and/or Conclusion? Help please!

In my opinion, it's more about accepting something to be true, rather than knowing for sure it is true. The premises carry a weight of being true, but it's up to you to accept them as fully true. The premises in Kalam are extreme wide in definition, and without pinpointing the definitions of words like "cause" or "exist," we can't say the premises are totally true. The first premise for instance should include a clarification that the "cause" any kind of temporal or non-temporal cause, any kind of natural or supernatural cause, and also mechanical or conceived by mind. The second premise is supported by the Hotel Paradox, which also is a bit shaky, since the paradox itself seems to play a trick on sets, and it was originally use to prove that we can't trust ordinary reasoning when it comes to infinite sets, but here it's used in a setting of ordinary reasoning to prove an argument.

 

3. I've read that the KCA is used to support the Teleological Argument (for a Designed Universe) and the Moral Argument (for a Moral Lawgiver). Without the KCA establishing an Uncaused Cause there can be no Designer and no Moral Lawgiver. Is this conclusion correct?

Not quite. The Design and Moral arguments are supposed to stand on their own, and the combination of all arguments is supposed to be compelling enough for God's existence.

 

 

What I don't understand is why Christian apologist had to dig into Islamic theology to bolster a rather poor argument. Why are they allowed to do that? Why couldn't they sit down and come up with something much stronger philosophically.

Not only just an Islamic argument, but Kalaam faction were later considered heretic by Islam, but has gained new grounds in the Muslim world as well.

 

And they can't come up with something stronger philosophical.

 

I also find it funny that we need to learn about God's existence FIRST, accept his reality SECOND and learn the deep philosophy THIRD. If God was already an entity that could be seen and understood, why is he hiding and letting us run around trying to find ways to prove and disprove his existence.

My view exactly.

 

 

Furthermore, how can an apologist really use science to defend their case if their religion is DIRECTLY REVEALED to some, but not others. Hmmmmmm...seems to me you all have a PR problem.

They are confused, which is rather common when people try to discuss fantasy. The same problem exists in the UFO community. You have the "Martians are green" group and the "Martians are white" group and the "Martians are brown" group... And everyone is certain they are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What kind of Argument is the KCA?

 

Deductive. It follows the classic deductive argument path:

 

1 All men are mortal.

 

2 Socrates is a man.

 

3 Therefore Socrates is mortal.

 

If any of the premises of a deductive argument are false, then the argument itself is false:

 

1 All men are psychic.

 

2 Socrates is a man.

 

3 therefore Socrates is psychic.

 

This is a deductive argument based on a false premise (All men are psychic).

 

2. I see that the Premises and Conclusion of an Argument are defined as, "Truthbearers." I find the Wikipedia explanation of this term difficult to grasp. How does one go about verifying the "truth" of a truthbearing Premise and/or Conclusion? Help please!

 

A truthbearer is a statement which must be either true or false. It's like a binary switch, it's either on or off. "The lamp is on." is such a statement: either the lamp is on, or it is not. The lamp is not half on.

 

Schroedinger's cat is not allowed in the same room with a truthbearer.

 

The veracity of a truthbearing premise is exactly what must be examined in order to determine the veracity of a deductive argument. In the examples above, one would attempt to determine whether all men are mortal, and whether Socrates is, in fact, a man. If both of these premises turn out to be true, then the conclusion that Socrates is mortal follows logically. In the second example, since one premise (All men are psychic) can be proven false (I am a man and I am not psychic), the entire argument breaks down.

 

3. I've read that the KCA is used to support the Teleological Argument (for a Designed Universe) and the Moral Argument (for a Moral Lawgiver). Without the KCA establishing an Uncaused Cause there can be no Designer and no Moral Lawgiver. Is this conclusion correct?

 

No. Disproving the KCA does not disprove all possible explanations for an uncaused cause or a moral lawgiver. It does, however, destroy any argument which uses the conclusion of the KCA as a basic premise.

 

It is a classic technique to use one argument to prove the truthbearer statements of another argument. For example, I could use the conclusion that "Socrates is psychic" as a truthbearer in another deductive argument:

 

1 All men are psychic.

 

2 Socrates is a man.

 

3 Therefore Socrates is psychic.

 

(therefore, since)

 

1 All psychics eventually die.

 

2 Socrates is psychic.

 

3 Socrates will eventually die.

 

If, however, you can disprove the first deductive argument, you have effectively disproven the second as well, because it depends on the conclusion of the first as a premise for the second.

 

This means that any argument which uses the conclusion of the KCA as a basic premise is in big trouble. But it doesn't mean that another argument could not be used to reach the same conclusion:

 

1 All men are mortal.

 

2 Socrates is a man.

 

3 Therefore Socrates is mortal.

 

(therefore, since)

 

1 All mortals eventually die.

 

2 Socrates is mortal.

 

3 Socrates will eventually die.

 

The final conclusion turns out to be correct after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also find it funny that we need to learn about God's existence FIRST, accept his reality SECOND and learn the deep philosophy THIRD. If God was already an entity that could be seen and understood, why is he hiding and letting us run around trying to find ways to prove and disprove his existence.

 

I said something similar to LNC months ago, of course he ignored it because that is what good apologists do (ignore facts that are inconvenient to them) , but that is neither here nor there.

 

Kalam's cosmological argument is faulty from the get go because it attempts to use bare deductive logic to prove somethings existence.

 

It is silly, if something exists it should manifest itself in reality in some way. I do not need a deductive argument to prove my house exists, or my cat exists. My cat will assert its existence by climbing all over my keyboard when ever I am trying to type something. :HaHa:

 

If god's existence is so certain It should be obvious to everyone though his interactions with the universe. What exactly is the difference between something that does not exist and something that exists but does not manifest in any way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

I think that you may have misunderstood what I was saying as I didn't mention first cause, that is a different argument. I mentioned material, efficient, formal and final causes. Here is how it would work using your "words on the screen" example. The material cause would be the electrons appearing on the computer screen (also a part of the material cause) and the keyboard, computer, etc. The efficient cause of the words appearing would be you typing away at your keyboard. The formal cause would be the formulation of the words in your head before you began typing them on your keyboard. The final cause is the purpose for which you typed the words on the screen in the first place. So causally, it would be the final cause followed by the formal cause followed by the efficient cause and then the material cause allows you to carry out your plan.

 

Regarding first cause, that seems only to apply to the origin of the universe and the need of a first cause to start the causal chain of events that we see following. It seems logical that if there were no first cause, there could be no subsequent causes and no effects.

 

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

 

No, that is to confuse two concepts.

 

"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.

 

Yet a quantum vacuum contains quantum energy, so it is no an absolute vacuum.

 

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.

 

That is not a proper usage of the term final cause as there cannot be multiple final causes for an effect. You have not shown that the universe is not the product of a single first cause. To multiply causes is not parsimonious and therefore would violate Occam's Razor. There is no need to multiply causes for the effect. Do you have reason to do so? If so, what is that reason?

 

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.

 

Can you give empirical data to support the model? I don't believe there has been any beyond possibly mathematical models, but that still falls into the range of speculation, not hard empirical testable data. I believe you are in the realm of metaphysics with this model rather than physics. But, if you can show data to prove me wrong, I would be willing to consider it. Can you show me that you are not operating in the realm of opinion here?

 

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 would you say this theory is gaining ground if it cannot be tested? In what way is it "gaining ground?" We could come up with all kinds of theories, but if they are not testable, then they are in the realm of metaphysics and not science. So, I am surprised that you would be promoting them so vigorously since you seem to be one who doesn't like to promote non-scientific theories. Why do you consider that you are somehow outside the realm of opinion? I don't think I have confused anything here, but if you think I have, maybe you could tell me how.

 

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.

 

I never said that the multiverse is a physical existence in the same way as our universe, since that is not testable. What empirical data do you have for the existence of multiverses with different laws from our universe? Why would you promote a hypothesis without empirical data to support it? Again you have crossed from science to metaphysics here and I am not sure why you promote this so vigorously without empirical data to support the hypothesis.

 

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???

 

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

 

I didn't say that and don't know how you even came to that conclusion.

 

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?

 

I have explained why the first cause had to be a personal agent, so maybe you can read back and find that, it does follow logically that the first cause had to be personal as the universe is not infinitely old as it should be if the cause and effect came to be simultaneously as they should have given a non-personal cause.

 

Yes, you could say that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind that existed in a timelesss, spaceless existence causally prior to the creation of the universe. Being eternal, this mind did not have a beginning and therefore was not caused by anything external to itself. This being that I will call God created all matter, energy, space and time out of nothing (ex nihilo). This fits with the data that the universe had a beginning and the universe includes all matter, energy, space and time about 13.7 billion years ago. To posit any material existence prior to that event is to enter the realm of metaphysics and to leave the realm of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if formal cause was actually understood, many questions could be answered. I'm pretty sure LNC sees the capacity of a "thing" to be programmed into it, when that may not be the case. The formal cause for existents may self pre-exist.

 

And he states this:

 

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.

I would like him to point out a object that is not in motion without relativity.

 

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about when you say:

 

I'm pretty sure LNC sees the capacity of a "thing" to be programmed into it, when that may not be the case. The formal cause for existents may self pre-exist.

 

What kind of thing might that be in the real world?

 

On the second point I think you are mixing concepts between the philosophical idea that I referred to with Plato and Aristotle and the epistemological concept as you portray through relativity. Again, I see that as more of an epistemelogical issue in that the thing only appears to be at rest, whereas, Plato and Aristotle were speaking conceptually of an object truly at rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would somebody please tell me how in the hell an "immaterial being" can be said to exist?

 

 

I suppose if you presuppose a "ghost in the machine" view of the mind, then god could be analogous to that "ghost." But the ghost in the machine concept is not nearly a given and serves as a poor analogy on which to base the assertion the "God is an immaterial being."

 

If by immaterial one means "pure energy" then that is no help. Energy and matter are related to one another by e=mc2. So if by immaterial one means energy, that is essentially admitting that god is physical and subject to the laws of this universe.

 

Once again, how can an immaterial being be said to exist?

 

Are you saying that you don't believe that any immaterial things exist or just immaterial beings? I don't mean pure energy as energy falls into the category of the material realm as you pointed out. I mean a truly immaterial being. Yes, I believe that it is most logical to explain the existence of our minds as an immaterial of us in who we are. I don't believe that a mind can truly be reduced to the brain or even an emanation of the brain (i.e., property of the brain) as that would remove free will and choice from us. If that were the case, then our conversation here would be meaningless, just words on the screen over which we had no control or purpose for writing. I don't think that I can accept that as a valid thought, can you?

 

Can you give me a reason that an immaterial being could not exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The Universe began to exist.

Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

 

Hans’ and Notblinded’s line of reasoning on this was pretty cool in my opinion.

 

I don’t believe we fully understand the relations between time, the universe, and causality. For instance, what would it mean to say that time began to exist?

 

I have a hard time taking most current cosmologists seriously though, whether they be religious inclined or scientific. We have only just begun to gain explicit understandings of systems within the universe. And some of them, such as organisms, reveal our own vast ignorance to us. If organisms alone now present such daunting mystery to us, then how much more of a mystery is entire universe?

 

The questions that seem pressing to me here are... What is time? And what is the nature of causality? If we had compelling answers to these questions then I think maybe could begin to tackle some of these mysteries. But as it stands, I think we are shooting in the dark.

 

What it would mean to say that time began to exist would be to say that matter began to exist as time is the measure of change.

 

If we are ignorant as you seem to indicate, how do we know that we are ignorant? That seems to be a self-defeating idea. What part of cosmological discoveries do you consider to be invalid, and why? Do you base this on evidence or is it a philosophical problem that you have? If it is philosophical, can you give me more of your reasoning?

 

What are your ideas as to what time is and what is the nature of causality? Do you have different ideas than what is commonly understood? What would make an answer compelling to you and why would it overcome your epistemological hurdles of ignorance that you claim we suffer from now? I am curious as to what you are thinking here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cause and the effect were simultaneous, and not sequentially contingent. Meaning, a self-caused event. God came into existence at the same time as he for the first time ever "caused" anything. In other words, the Universe, and everything that exists, is "God".

 

I am not sure how you come to this conclusion and don't know of anyone who promotes such an idea. Who says that God came into existence at the same time as the first cause? How does something cause itself? That is a logical contradiction.

 

Just to briefly bring up something about the cause, it can be:

1) supernatural or natural

2) made by a mind, or by a natural force

3) to fit the First Cause argument, it must be able to be simultaneous, or sequential.

 

I don't see how the cause of nature can be natural as that would mean that nature had to exist to cause nature to exist and that is logically fallacious. Same problem with the natural force in point two. You will have to explain what you mean by point three as it doesn't make sense to me. What must be able to be simultaneous or sequential and why?

 

So to be correct, at least these alternative causes must be accounted for in the premise, and (since LNC loves evidence), all of them must be proven first. In other words, supernatural causes must be proven. Simultaneous cause-effects must be proven. Etc. Without those proofs, like LNC said, then the whole argument falls.

 

So where are the supernatural/mind/simultaneous cause-effects? Without them, the premise is incomplete.

 

But then if the argument is: well, the supernatural/mind/simultaneous cause-effect was the First Cause. Then the problem is that the premise rests on the conclusions, and that is a big no-no and that fallacy got yet another fancy name.

 

Again, if you can explain what you mean in a little more detail we can discuss it, but as it stands, I am not sure what you mean here and therefore, cannot give you a response. Maybe you could also explain why your statements must be true, especially #3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think it goes wrong already here. Most of the time, or actually all the time, whatever begins to exist have multiple causes.

 

 

Not only that, but there are things which exist which have no causes. Quoted from Wikipedia's article on the Cosmological argument
The argument for a Prime Mover is based on the scientific foundation of Aristotelian physics. Some physicists feel that the development of the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century and quantum physics in the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.[18] Modern physics has many examples of bodies being moved without any known moving body, apparently undermining the first premise of the Prime Mover argument: every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion. Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He gives an example— "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these molecules could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.

 

Again, this is just to confuse the idea of an object already in motion (as all material objects are down to the quantum level) and a philosophical concept of an object truly at rest. The first is an empirical problem the second is an ontological issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not a proper usage of the term final cause as there cannot be multiple final causes for an effect. You have not shown that the universe is not the product of a single first cause. To multiply causes is not parsimonious and therefore would violate Occam's Razor. There is no need to multiply causes for the effect.

 

Funny you should mention that. This is precisely what undermines your claim that the Universe must have been created: you are multiplying entities.

 

But of course you are afraid to deal with that fact, aren't you? Which is why you refuse to respond to this thread:

 

Occam's razor v. goddidit

holding LNC's feet to the fire.

 

Go ahead, LNC, school us on Occam's Razor some more.

 

Unless, of course, you have no answer - in which case you'll continue to ignore that thread.

 

And I'll continue to poke you with it, because it such a great way of exposing your dishonesty.

 

:poke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this is just to confuse the idea of an object already in motion (as all material objects are down to the quantum level) and a philosophical concept of an object truly at rest. The first is an empirical problem the second is an ontological issue.

 

The above is an admission that there is no scientific basis for the claim that any objects ever were truly at rest. It is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, therefore attempts to establish the veracity of the claim using scientific tools are foolish at best, and clearly futile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it would mean to say that time began to exist would be to say that matter began to exist as time is the measure of change.

 

If we are ignorant as you seem to indicate, how do we know that we are ignorant? That seems to be a self-defeating idea. What part of cosmological discoveries do you consider to be invalid, and why? Do you base this on evidence or is it a philosophical problem that you have? If it is philosophical, can you give me more of your reasoning?

 

What are your ideas as to what time is and what is the nature of causality? Do you have different ideas than what is commonly understood? What would make an answer compelling to you and why would it overcome your epistemological hurdles of ignorance that you claim we suffer from now? I am curious as to what you are thinking here.

Hey there LNC, for me the claim, “time began to exist” makes little sense. The word “began” already implies some sort of time, right? In other words, the claim seems to assume what it purports to explain.

 

I confess that I don’t know much about current cosmological models. But from what I’ve gathered time itself is understood to be aspect of the universe. And I thought it had been shown that there is some sort of relation between space/time and gravity. In my estimation this gives credence to the idea that time is a part of the fabric of the universe. So I’m thinking that ‘no universe’ implies ‘no time’.

 

You’re right. I do strongly suspect that we are mostly ignorant in these matters. But I don’t believe this is a self defeating notion. I think ignorance can be remedied. I believe someday we will understand things better than we do now given the appropriate questions and the work necessary to answer them.

 

I do have some philosophical reservations about cosmology though. To my mind, science is the study of natural systems. And all natural systems have their attendant environments. So I don’t see how cosmology fits well within this scheme because I don’t see what sense it would make to say that the entire universe has an environment. But if the universe is like a hologram, where each part of it images the whole, then I think there may be some hope of understanding the universe by studying the natural systems within it.

 

Those are just some of my thoughts LNC, and I suggest taking most of it with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your ideas as to what time is and what is the nature of causality?

 

For your enlightenment:

 

"If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless. Unfortunately, many children, and adults, too, regard this answer as disingenuous. There must be more to it than that, they object.

 

...

 

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity."

 

What Happened Before the Big Bang

 

...and even though it is claimed by some that a

 

Glimpse of Time Before Big Bang Possible

 

nonetheless, "Cosmologist Carlo Rovelli at the Center of Theoretical Physics in Marseilles, France,found it "remarkable" that the new work could delve past the Big Bang.He added the work had to lead to predictions that could be compared to cosmological observations "in order to become credible."

 

Because, as we all know, science is all about predictive models (as opposed to magical invisible sky-daddies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you may have misunderstood what I was saying as I didn't mention first cause, that is a different argument. I mentioned material, efficient, formal and final causes. Here is how it would work using your "words on the screen" example. The material cause would be the electrons appearing on the computer screen (also a part of the material cause) and the keyboard, computer, etc. The efficient cause of the words appearing would be you typing away at your keyboard. The formal cause would be the formulation of the words in your head before you began typing them on your keyboard. The final cause is the purpose for which you typed the words on the screen in the first place. So causally, it would be the final cause followed by the formal cause followed by the efficient cause and then the material cause allows you to carry out your plan.

 

Regarding first cause, that seems only to apply to the origin of the universe and the need of a first cause to start the causal chain of events that we see following. It seems logical that if there were no first cause, there could be no subsequent causes and no effects.

Ok. Fair enough. I mixed them up. But then we get to this problem:

 

So how do we know that the first premise of the Kalam argument is true?

 

The first premise is claiming that things that come into existence had a cause. So lets say a child is born. That child is a new entity. It must have a cause. That cause is what? Formal, Final, and Efficient causes we can observe and measure. So we know those exists, and we can establish a premise that First, Final, and Efficient causes are part of the bringing a new entity into being. But there is not First cause in the premise. Nothing to support the First Cause in it. This means the syllogism is broken based on a vague premise, where the word "cause" is ambiguous, and the whole argument is assuming a First Cause a priori.

 

Do you understand what I'm saying here? We have four causes, but only three of them are accounted for in the first premise, and we're to accept the fourth one at the conclusion.

 

I think the Aristotelian forms doesn't fit Kalam, but rather destroy it.

 

edit: besides, if First Cause only apply to the conclusion, then the premise is only supported by the conclusion, and now we really do have a begging the question fallacy, because it assumes the conclusion in the premise.

 

Yet a quantum vacuum contains quantum energy, so it is no an absolute vacuum.

I don't think you understand what I was saying there.

 

When someone says: "People's decisions are not done in a vacuum," they mean that there are many things that are influencing the situation and not just done with all other things removed. I think you don't understand the idiomatic use of the word "vacuum" in what I said. I didn't use it as a technical or scientific word.

 

That is not a proper usage of the term final cause as there cannot be multiple final causes for an effect. You have not shown that the universe is not the product of a single first cause. To multiply causes is not parsimonious and therefore would violate Occam's Razor. There is no need to multiply causes for the effect. Do you have reason to do so? If so, what is that reason?

Four Causes is already multiplying the causes. Or are you arguing that three of them are not causes, but only the first one isn't, and yet supporting the syllogism with a premise which assume only the first three?

 

Look: four causes, how many are there? Four. 4. Okay. Lets accept that. Four.

 

Premise 1: three causes we can see in this world, they create things. Okay. Lets accept that, because the First Cause was only once, and we can't prove or test it, it's a hypothetical, so the premise is based on the other three causes

Premise 2: the universe begane

Conclusion: lets forget the three causes, and now lets bring in the first cause not included in the premise, and lets pretend we have made a parsimonious argument. No we haven't, because we have mixed the causes, assume four, only accepted three in the premise, and only accepted the fourth in the conclusion.

 

Can you give empirical data to support the model? I don't believe there has been any beyond possibly mathematical models, but that still falls into the range of speculation, not hard empirical testable data. I believe you are in the realm of metaphysics with this model rather than physics. But, if you can show data to prove me wrong, I would be willing to consider it. Can you show me that you are not operating in the realm of opinion here?

The argument for a First Cause is also speculative. The theoretical astrophysicists who work out mathematical models for these theories use mathematical models to work out these theories. So what do they have, they have mathematical models. Duh!

 

I don't have one, because they are way too complex, but the thing is: they didn't just sit in the sofa and fantasized about some ideas and then went to the newspaper and told them about their latest idea. They worked on these ideas, so there are models. But they are not complete, nor are they always fully convincing. There are problems. There are holes.

 

That you don't know they have these theories based on models only shows that you have not read enough about these things. You claim to know more than the scientists, and you don't even have a degree yet.

 

Why would you say this theory is gaining ground if it cannot be tested? In what way is it "gaining ground?" We could come up with all kinds of theories, but if they are not testable, then they are in the realm of metaphysics and not science. So, I am surprised that you would be promoting them so vigorously since you seem to be one who doesn't like to promote non-scientific theories. Why do you consider that you are somehow outside the realm of opinion? I don't think I have confused anything here, but if you think I have, maybe you could tell me how.

Your throwing sticks on a pile which is not burning. You claimed that there were no other alternative theories about the existence of the Universe, and you were wrong. That's the point. There are other theories.

 

The point was: you were and are still wrong. Other theories exist. And this theory has been published and presented (with mathematical models) in the scientific community, which makes it an alternative, even though it isn't tested yet.

 

So you're making a strawman here, since that wasn't the argument.

 

You need to step down from that "I have to be right," and start really think about what people say.

 

I never said that the multiverse is a physical existence in the same way as our universe, since that is not testable. What empirical data do you have for the existence of multiverses with different laws from our universe? Why would you promote a hypothesis without empirical data to support it? Again you have crossed from science to metaphysics here and I am not sure why you promote this so vigorously without empirical data to support the hypothesis.

The why are you? Give me empirical data for the first cause and for God.

 

The key here is that if Heaven can exist somehow outside our Universe, then other universes can too. You can't have the cake and eat it at the same time.

 

If God could exist "before" time began, then a higher dimension Multiverse can too.

 

I have explained why the first cause had to be a personal agent, so maybe you can read back and find that, it does follow logically that the first cause had to be personal as the universe is not infinitely old as it should be if the cause and effect came to be simultaneously as they should have given a non-personal cause.

No, it does not follow, since the syllogism and the premises does not account for it. It argues causes, not mental powers, or supernatural non-temporal beings. It argues causes, and it is based on the understanding of natural causes, not supernatural-mind causes.

 

Yes, you could say that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind that existed in a timelesss, spaceless existence causally prior to the creation of the universe.

So when did time come into being?

 

Doesn't William Craig argue that infinite past cannot exist?

 

So if time began, then how can existence prior to time's beginning even be a logical statement? It's division by zero.

 

Being eternal, this mind did not have a beginning and therefore was not caused by anything external to itself. This being that I will call God created all matter, energy, space and time out of nothing (ex nihilo). This fits with the data that the universe had a beginning and the universe includes all matter, energy, space and time about 13.7 billion years ago. To posit any material existence prior to that event is to enter the realm of metaphysics and to leave the realm of science.

Prior to time was no time. No time is not the same as supernatural time. Supernatural time would still fall under the infinite-past paradox and God must have a beginning. God couldn't just make up his mind "one day" and create the universe, because it would require "day" to exist, i.e. time. God must have come into being and existence at the same moment as the First Cause. You claimed the First Cause was simultaneous as the first event, so First Cause was at the first moment of the Universe, not before.

 

Read what you are saying above. "This fits with the data that the universe had a beginning and the universe includes all matter, energy, space and time about 13.7 billion years ago." That means time didn't exist before time began to exist. Nothing can be "before" time zero. There are no negative Integers in the set of Natural numbers, not even zero is included. So don't keep on telling me that Natural numbers must have started with Zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure how you come to this conclusion and don't know of anyone who promotes such an idea. Who says that God came into existence at the same time as the first cause? How does something cause itself? That is a logical contradiction.

First of al, the conclusion is based on that time doesn't exist before time began. Nothing can be, exist, act, think, or whatever before time started.

 

Secondly, just become no one promotes the idea it doesn't make it unsound.

 

Thirdly, First Cause=God, that's what you claim. First Cause was one time, and simultaneous with the beginning of the Universe, that's what you said. So First Casue=one time and simultaneous with the beginning of the Universe=God, means, God was at that moment of time. The first moment, was the First Cause. Or do you claim that First Cause existed before the Universe beginning?

 

Lastly, to say something to be self-causing is not a logical contradiction. You got that wrong. The First Cause, since it's the cause of time, and the time is required for causality, then the cause needs to be its effect as well, hence self-caused.

 

I don't see how the cause of nature can be natural as that would mean that nature had to exist to cause nature to exist and that is logically fallacious. Same problem with the natural force in point two. You will have to explain what you mean by point three as it doesn't make sense to me. What must be able to be simultaneous or sequential and why?

All causes in nature are natural. We are talking about the other three, right? So the three natural causes exists, and then the fourth supernatural causes exists only by assumption to solve the problem. The first premise of Kalam must include all conditions for the syllogism to be valid.

 

Either the first premise claims:

 

P1) everything that comes into existence is caused by a supernatural cause

 

or

 

P1) everything that comes into existence is caused by natural, or supernatural causes

 

Which one is it?

 

Sequence is when something happens in sequence, which means that something happened before something else. A cause that is in sequence with the effect means that the cause happened before the event, not simultaneous. If the First Cause was in sequence, before the Universe came to be, then Time must have existed before the Universe. It's very simple. Extremely simple. At least to me.

 

Again, if you can explain what you mean in a little more detail we can discuss it, but as it stands, I am not sure what you mean here and therefore, cannot give you a response. Maybe you could also explain why your statements must be true, especially #3.

No the question is on you to answer how time exist before time began. And why the first premise hooks the reader on thinking about natural causes, but make a conclusion based on supernatural causes. The premise does not account for the supernatural-nontemporal-mind cause, it only assumes it a priori. It is you who has to prove and give evidence that a supernatural-nontemporal-mind cause exists before the first premise can be accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being eternal, this mind did not have a beginning and therefore was not caused by anything external to itself. This being that I will call God created all matter, energy, space and time out of nothing (ex nihilo). This fits with the data that the universe had a beginning and the universe includes all matter, energy, space and time about 13.7 billion years ago. To posit any material existence prior to that event is to enter the realm of metaphysics and to leave the realm of science.

Prior to time was no time. No time is not the same as supernatural time. Supernatural time would still fall under the infinite-past paradox and God must have a beginning. God couldn't just make up his mind "one day" and create the universe, because it would require "day" to exist, i.e. time. God must have come into being and existence at the same moment as the First Cause. You claimed the First Cause was simultaneous as the first event, so First Cause was at the first moment of the Universe, not before.

 

Read what you are saying above. "This fits with the data that the universe had a beginning and the universe includes all matter, energy, space and time about 13.7 billion years ago." That means time didn't exist before time began to exist. Nothing can be "before" time zero. There are no negative Integers in the set of Natural numbers, not even zero is included. So don't keep on telling me that Natural numbers must have started with Zero.

 

After reading all the posts in this thread, I finally understand what you and others are saying. But it seems LNC will never get there. I don't think he'll accept the concept of what a First Cause is. He'll never unde4rstand that an infinite and immaterial being doesn't fit the description of a First Cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, here are some questions regard the KCA. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks.

 

1. What kind of Argument is the KCA? http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument This Wikipedia page lists Deductive, Inductive, Defeasible and Analogical Arguments. Presumably the KCA is one of these?

 

2. I see that the Premises and Conclusion of an Argument are defined as, "Truthbearers". I find the Wikipedia explanation of this term difficult to grasp. How does one go about verifying the "truth" of a truthbearing Premise and/or Conclusion? Help please!

 

3. I've read that the KCA is used to support the Teleological Argument (for a Designed Universe) and the Moral Argument (for a Moral Lawgiver). Without the KCA establishing an Uncaused Cause there can be no Designer and no Moral Lawgiver. Is this conclusion correct?

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

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

 

Thanks for the replies folks.

I'm now satisfied that I've got a grip on questions 1 and 3. I'm ok with the explanations given about question 2, but still struggling with other issues relating to the wording and meaning of the Premises. For instance...

 

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause"

Well, what is there that begins to exist that isn't formed out of pre-existing material and energy?

Take for instance, a tree. The tree doesn't "pop" into existence, mature, fully-formed and sixty feet tall. No, it begins as a seed. Even then, we should be careful not to suggest that this seed is the one cause of the tree. It isn't. Without soil, sunlight and rain you get no tree. The seed converts pre-existing material and energy (soil, rain and sunlight) into the material that, over time, becomes the tree. In fact, there's nothing in the universe (as far as we know) that isn't older material recycled into new forms. On Earth the two known agencies for recycling pre-existing matter and energy are Man and Nature. Both are pretty much self-explanatory.

Yes, supernaturalists might contend that there are "miraculous" events happening today where amputated/severed limbs re-grow (the new material coming from an unknown source) or food is multiplied (ditto). I've yet to see impartially recorded evidence for these events, but I keep an open mind. With such claims, the onus naturally falls on those making the claims to present their evidence.

 

Anyway, I'm struck by the radical difference between the way things within the universe come into existence and the way the Kalam suggests that the universe itself came into existence.

Within the universe we see Man or Nature causing things to exist. Verification of these two methods is obvious, easy and familiar to us all. No problem there.

But what about the First Cause (God) creating the universe out of nothing? This is known as creatio ex nihilo, I believe. How can we verify this third method of "things beginning to exist" with the same degree of certainty as the the other two?

Just like the Resurrection, CEN (creatio ex nihilo) was a once-only, never-to-be-repeated, entirely supernatural event that went unwitnessed by any human beings and which is recorded exclusively in the Bible. Anything Man-made or formed by Nature can be verified as being so to a very high degree of certainty. Can CEN be verified to the same degree of certainty? Hmmm....dunno?

 

Another thorny issue must also be that of human comprehension of these three different ways that "things begin to exist". We can readily understand how a tree (natural) or a house (man-made) is made, but an entire universe? Surely CEN is, was and always will be totally beyond human understanding and inquiry? If not, I'd be fascinated to know more!

So if the Kalam has to invoke CEN doesn't this weaken it's Conclusion?

Can CEN validly be compared to natural or man-made cause-and-effect when the first is unknowable, incomprehensible, impossible to investigate and therefore impossible to verify - unlike the other two? Being impossible to verify in this way, doesn't this mean that the Kalam mixes together the verifiable and the unverifiable, the knowable and the unknowable, the confirmed and the assumed?

 

As you can see, I'm bursting with questions about this, so once again, any help untying these knots would be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

BornAgainAthiest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can readily understand how a tree (natural) or a house (man-made) is made,...

I think it’s easy to agree that we understand how a house is made, but I would disagree that we understand how trees are made. I mean, I have this intuitive notion that trees make trees and that they are self caused. But I don’t know that anyone could claim to thoroughly understand how they do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA, you got the right questions. That's why my opinion is that Kalaam isn't a good argument. Many questions, and the answers contradict each other. Use one explanation, another question comes up. Answer that one and the answer contradicts the first answer. And so it goes, on, and on, and on...

 

Here's my belief:

 

1) We don't understand time. Our concept of time is skewed and limited.

 

2) Things don't come into existence. The transition into existence. We categorize things and clump them together as unique, distinct, and discrete entities while they're not. A "tree" is many things, not just one kind. It grows into it, like you said.

 

3) Logic contains paradoxes because we mix infinite with finite. It's like following magical math:

 

3/3 = 1

3*1/3 = 1

but 1/3 = 0.333... ∞

so: 3*0.333...∞ = 0.999...∞

 

which leads to following paradox: 1 = 0.999...∞

 

The error lies in the misuse of infinite series.

 

4) We don't know the beginning of the Universe. Big Bang is the most likely theory, but other theories have been suggested, and some of them have brought an interest in the scientific community. So it's not like Big Bang is unchallenged anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know the beginning of the Universe. Big Bang is the most likely theory, but other theories have been suggested, and some of them have brought an interest in the scientific community.

Personally, I have a hard time taking any theory seriously at this time, including the Big Bang. I think science is still in it's infancy when it comes to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.