The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[LNC]

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

 

These are insights of a scientist, not necessarily a philosopher. I would think that he doesn't practice his physics this way in believing that things "just happened" without searching out the cause. That seems to be a science stopper! (of which Christians are often accused when introducing an intelligent agent into the equation) I don't know why he considers it meaningless to find a cause for the Big Bang, except that the cause may not be a material cause and therefore, meaningless to him as a scientist. However, that said, I don't think that this idea has slowed down the research and thinking on this topic.

 

...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).

It is interesting that your second linked article seems to contradict the first. I guess it goes to show you that scientific thought is not monolithic, and thankfully so. I would agree with the author that scientific models should produce predictions; however, I don't see why you believe that this rules out inferring an intelligent agent into that explanation. It seems that forensic science does this all the time, or maybe you haven't seen the many shows that depict this field.

[LNC]

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.

 

In regard to the child, it depends upon the cause about which you speak. The cause could be the parents (material cause), the efficient cause could also be the parents who do what parents tend to do, the formal cause would also be the parents who conceived of having the child (possibly), and the final cause could also be the parents who have a purpose for having the child (possibly) and/or God who has a greater purpose for that child. You have to explain to me what you mean by first cause in this case as you seem to be imprecise in your use of that term here. In regard to first cause and the universe we have a different situation going on. According to scientific models, there was no spacetime continuum causally prior to the Big Bang, so there would, by definition need to be a cause for the universe since it did not exist. Now, Kalam doesn't use the term "first" cause, it simply says that the universe had a cause, so there is no question begging as you suggest as the conclusion is supported from premise 1. I am not sure why you smuggle the word "first" in before cause in the conclusion, but I have not heard Kalam stated with that word used before cause.

 

How do you suggest that the Aristotelian form destroys Kalam?

 

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.

 

OK

 

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.

 

I don't suggest four causes for the universe. There was no material cause as there was no matter. I only suggest one cause. By the way, to say that there are four types of causes is not to multiply causes, just to say that there may be multiple ways to understand a single cause; multiple facets. I don't think that you have defeated or even challenged premise one as it doesn't speak specifically of the cause of the universe, just the principle of causality. Do you accept that principle? If not, could you give me a reason why not?

 

Let's drop the discussion of the different types of causes as I think you are confusing types of causes with addition of causes and that is not correct as I have stated above. Kalam only suggests one cause, so let's think about it in that way instead of confusing types of causes 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.

 

Can you tell me why premise one is speculative? Again, premise one does not speak of the universe, but the principle of causality. Are you denying that principle or only doing so in the case of the universe?

 

Yes, we have mathematical models, not empirical models. Mathematical models don't necessarily equate to scientific models.

 

So, the models are incomplete and have holes, which means that they are not valid theories at this point. To rest ones hope on them is to hope without a valid basis. I never suggested that their theories weren't based upon models, why do you believe that I was making that claim? I never claimed to know more than the scientists, why do you suggest that I have made that claim? Why do you suggest that I don't have a degree, you have never asked and I haven't volunteered that information? I do hold a degree and am working toward another, but what difference does that make? The question is whether the evidence suggests that the universe is past-eternal or not. I don't see evidence that would lead to that conclusion. I don't see evidence that would lead to the conclusion that the universe was self-caused either. Both ideas have both logical and scientific problems. I believe that the best explanation is that the universe is past-finite and caused by an immaterial agent as matter didn't not exist causally prior to the universe.

 

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.

 

OK, no other valid, falsifiable theories. We can make up all kinds of theories, but if they are not valid (logically and scientifically tenable) and falsifiable, then they are hardly worth giving one's attention to. You have not defended your theories, you have simply turned back to simply asserting that I am wrong without a reason for doing so.

 

Could you offer evidence for the validity of your theory? Also, I don't believe that I have created a straw man, nor have you shown evidence that I have. Again, you simply have asserted as much without giving reason and evidence.

 

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.

 

Do you believe that heaven exists? Do you believe that God exists?

 

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.

 

If the cause is the cause of all matter, it logically follows that that cause was immaterial, does it not? If you don't believe so, maybe you could give me the logic that would show that it could be otherwise. Second, if the cause was impersonal, then it logically follows that the effect would coincide with the cause as impersonal causes have no capacity to choose later or not act (these are all personal traits), nor could we suggest that there was some sort of trigger as that would suggest that someone had to set that trigger. So, it logically follows that the cause was personal. Now, you have not given any backing for your denials, so maybe you could do so in your next response.

 

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.

 

The first cause is by definition uncaused, which avoids the problem of an infinite regress. An infinite past does not exist since that would suggest that time has always existed, which is not the case. Again, there is no logical problem for suggesting that a being existed in a timeless state causally prior to the existence of the universe. No division by zero problem in that case.

 

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.

 

You are correct in your first statement. I don't know what supernatural time is and don't argue for such. There is no reason to suggest that God had a beginning and I don't see you making an argument to suggest that it is necessary. I don't suggest that God made up his mind one day to create, his decision and action coincided. Why do you suggest that God came into being, there is no logical reason for that, it simply gets you to a "what caused God?" problem which leads to an infinite regress. God, by definition, is an uncaused being. I don't suggest that the first cause was simultaneous with the first act. I suggest that the cause of the universe is uncaused and that the decision to create and the act of creating coincide.

 

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense to me, maybe you could clarify your thoughts. I didn't suggest anything about negative numbers and I do suggest that time began with the universe which models put at between 13-15 billion years ago plus or minus. Also, it is not me who suggests that natural numbers are non-negative, that is definitional to the term.

[Legion]

Again, there is no logical problem for suggesting that a being existed in a timeless state causally prior to the existence of the universe. No division by zero problem in that case.

LNC, just my thoughts again. I think it makes little sense to say that X caused the universe to come into being when causality itself is an aspect of the universe. And I believe there is little sense in saying that time began to exist when there is no other back drop of time with which to compare it. I think if the universe does not exist, time does not exist. And that without time there are no beginnings.

[Ouroboros]

In regard to the child, it depends upon the cause about which you speak. The cause could be the parents (material cause), the efficient cause could also be the parents who do what parents tend to do, the formal cause would also be the parents who conceived of having the child (possibly), and the final cause could also be the parents who have a purpose for having the child (possibly) and/or God who has a greater purpose for that child. You have to explain to me what you mean by first cause in this case as you seem to be imprecise in your use of that term here. In regard to first cause and the universe we have a different situation going on. According to scientific models, there was no spacetime continuum causally prior to the Big Bang, so there would, by definition need to be a cause for the universe since it did not exist. Now, Kalam doesn't use the term "first" cause, it simply says that the universe had a cause, so there is no question begging as you suggest as the conclusion is supported from premise 1. I am not sure why you smuggle the word "first" in before cause in the conclusion, but I have not heard Kalam stated with that word used before cause.

I see.

 

Usually we hear that the Kalaam is the argument for a First Cause, but now it seems like you argue it doesn't.

 

p1) Anything that comes into existence had a cause.

 

What cause? What is a cause? Is it a supernatural cause, or is it a natural cause in the premise? If natural cause,

 

How do you suggest that the Aristotelian form destroys Kalam?

That the word "cause" in the first premise doesn't say what kind of cause it is, or if the cause is natural or supernatural, or of any other kind. So far I have this from our discussion:

 

A cause is: supernatural or natural, sequential in time or simultaneous, intentional (by a mind/will) or unintentional. Any other you'd like to add?

 

So wouldn't the conclusion then be:

c) the universe had a cause (of the same type and definition as in the premise)

???

 

 

I don't suggest four causes for the universe. There was no material cause as there was no matter.

But there were energy.

 

I only suggest one cause.

Which means the premise must account for only that cause. You can't switch definition of what a "cause" is between premises and conclusion. The conclusion must be using the same definition of the cause as the premise 1 does. Or the syllogism is invalid.

 

By the way, to say that there are four types of causes is not to multiply causes, just to say that there may be multiple ways to understand a single cause; multiple facets. I don't think that you have defeated or even challenged premise one as it doesn't speak specifically of the cause of the universe, just the principle of causality. Do you accept that principle? If not, could you give me a reason why not?

The problem is that you're redefining the word "cause" between premises and conclusion.

 

Let's drop the discussion of the different types of causes as I think you are confusing types of causes with addition of causes and that is not correct as I have stated above. Kalam only suggests one cause, so let's think about it in that way instead of confusing types of causes here.

So the premise also then assume only one cause, in other words:

 

p1) everything that comes into existence have only one cause, which is God.

p2) the universe came into existence

c) the universe had only one cause, which was God

 

Is that correct?

 

Can you tell me why premise one is speculative? Again, premise one does not speak of the universe, but the principle of causality. Are you denying that principle or only doing so in the case of the universe?

The principle of causality is based on NATURAL causes. And that must lead to a conclusion based on a NATURAL cause. You can't switch definition.

 

Yes, we have mathematical models, not empirical models. Mathematical models don't necessarily equate to scientific models.

Eeehh... But a philosophical syllogism does? A philosophical argument is not a physical model any more than a mathematical, so how can you even argue against it?

 

So, the models are incomplete and have holes, which means that they are not valid theories at this point. To rest ones hope on them is to hope without a valid basis. I never suggested that their theories weren't based upon models, why do you believe that I was making that claim? I never claimed to know more than the scientists, why do you suggest that I have made that claim? Why do you suggest that I don't have a degree, you have never asked and I haven't volunteered that information? I do hold a degree and am working toward another, but what difference does that make? The question is whether the evidence suggests that the universe is past-eternal or not. I don't see evidence that would lead to that conclusion. I don't see evidence that would lead to the conclusion that the universe was self-caused either. Both ideas have both logical and scientific problems. I believe that the best explanation is that the universe is past-finite and caused by an immaterial agent as matter didn't not exist causally prior to the universe.

You're constantly arguing that the scientists are wrong (like no singularity), and you're constantly arguing that philosophers who doesn't agree with you are below your standards.

 

And I still can't see how God can be an actual infinite while the Universe cannot. If the argument is based on that actual infinite cannot exist, then God cannot either.

 

OK, no other valid, falsifiable theories.

Kalaam is not a theory. Cosmologists have theories that hold, you don't. Kalaam is just an argument, not a theory.

[Ouroboros]

(cont)

 

We can make up all kinds of theories, but if they are not valid (logically and scientifically tenable) and falsifiable, then they are hardly worth giving one's attention to. You have not defended your theories, you have simply turned back to simply asserting that I am wrong without a reason for doing so.

The theories of the universe have more evidence than Kalaam. So they are more reliable and more believable than Kalaam.

 

Could you offer evidence for the validity of your theory? Also, I don't believe that I have created a straw man, nor have you shown evidence that I have. Again, you simply have asserted as much without giving reason and evidence.

Why should I? You haven't provided ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD! Prove that the supernatural exist. Prove that non-temporal beings exist. You CANNOT!

 

It's more likely science is right, and you are wrong.

 

If the cause is the cause of all matter, it logically follows that that cause was immaterial, does it not? If you don't believe so, maybe you could give me the logic that would show that it could be otherwise. Second, if the cause was impersonal, then it logically follows that the effect would coincide with the cause as impersonal causes have no capacity to choose later or not act (these are all personal traits), nor could we suggest that there was some sort of trigger as that would suggest that someone had to set that trigger. So, it logically follows that the cause was personal. Now, you have not given any backing for your denials, so maybe you could do so in your next response.

How can a premise which assumes natural causes lead to a conclusion of non-natural causes? It's a false syllogism if it does.

 

 

 

The first cause is by definition uncaused, which avoids the problem of an infinite regress.

Avoids? It only creates a new paradox. It only replaces one paradox with another. How can God be infinite and actually exist, if an actual infinite cannot exist?

 

An infinite past does not exist since that would suggest that time has always existed, which is not the case. Again, there is no logical problem for suggesting that a being existed in a timeless state causally prior to the existence of the universe. No division by zero problem in that case.

Which means God did not exist BEFORE time came into being. There CANNOT be a "prior to the existence" if time was what came into existence.

 

You are correct in your first statement. I don't know what supernatural time is and don't argue for such.

Which means that you have to provide some evidence for supernatural time before you make the leap between premise of natural causes, and natural time, into a conclusion with a supernatural cause and supernatural time.

 

There is no reason to suggest that God had a beginning and I don't see you making an argument to suggest that it is necessary.

There is not reason to suggest that the singularity had a beginning and I don't see you making an argument to suggest that it is necessary.

 

I don't suggest that God made up his mind one day to create, his decision and action coincided. Why do you suggest that God came into being, there is no logical reason for that, it simply gets you to a "what caused God?" problem which leads to an infinite regress. God, by definition, is an uncaused being.

And God is by nature an infinite regress. He existed in some supernatural infinite. And it's okay, because an imaginary being is easier to accept than to accept that we are human beings with poor and tiny brains, and that we can't really understand time and space yet. So before we really understand these things, we can't create paradoxes based on our poor understanding to prove our favorite imaginary beings.

 

I don't suggest that the first cause was simultaneous with the first act. I suggest that the cause of the universe is uncaused and that the decision to create and the act of creating coincide.

The act, the cause, the event, the God, the creation, the decision, the time, the space, the existence, the beginning--all coincided. Your God is just an imagination.

 

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense to me, maybe you could clarify your thoughts. I didn't suggest anything about negative numbers and I do suggest that time began with the universe which models put at between 13-15 billion years ago plus or minus. Also, it is not me who suggests that natural numbers are non-negative, that is definitional to the term.

you have constantly suggested that God existed prior to the creation of time. That's illogical. That's my point. God did not exist before time came to being... or... we--human beings--just don't understand the concept of time, and the Kalaam is just a stupid argument which doesn't prove anything.

[Legion]

Hans I want to tell you a true story.

 

Prior to the existence of time, in fact well before the beginning of beginnings, there was the Word, a timeless Being beyond all understanding. And the Word was God. And God said, “Let there now be time.” And there was time; it was time for time. And God saw the time; that it was good.

 

Are we clear?

[Ouroboros]

Hans I want to tell you a true story.

 

Prior to the existence of time, in fact well before the beginning of beginnings, there was the Word, a timeless Being beyond all understanding. And the Word was God. And God said, “Let there now be time.” And there was time; it was time for time. And God saw the time; that it was good.

 

Are we clear?

Yup. Crystal. Except with a modification: "And in the void of no space, God said..."

[Legion]

Except with a modification: "And in the void of no space, God said..."

Hans your most excellent modification has been noted. And we have altered the true story to reflect your observations as well as your rich imagination.

 

“¹ Prior to the existence of time, in fact well before the beginning of beginnings, there was the Word, a timeless Being beyond all understanding. ²And the Word was God. ³ And in the void of no-space God said, “Let there now be time-space.” ⁴ And there was time; it was time for time. And there was space, a place for space. ⁵ And God saw the time-space; that it was good.” - First Book of Hans and Legion, 1-5.

[Ouroboros]

Legion, that was AWESOME!!! It was like taken straight out a holy book.

[Shyone]

First Book of Hans and Legion, 1-5.

If you really want to write a holy book, you'll have to put some name on it that makes it sound really important, like "First Book of Einstein" or "First Book of Hawking". That way people will read it, and it will carry an imprimatur that will last beyond your existence and carry a sense of importance beyond what is actually written.

 

At least, that's what they used to do.

[Ouroboros]

Actually, it would give it more credence if we gave it a name of an author who had nothing to do with it, like Book of Gandalf.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

The basic argument can be stated in two premises and a conclusion. It reads as follows:

 

1. Everything that began to exist has a cause for its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.

 

The argument doesn't argue for a certain God, it only argues that all matter space and time had a cause that is, logically, outside of matter space and time. Logically, a thing cannot be the cause of its own existence, and the universe would fall into that category. Scientifically, the models and data that we now have indicate that the universe is past-finite, i.e., it had a beginning. Since the universe, by definition, accounts for all matter, space and time, it follows that the cause had to be outside of matter, space and time. I therefore propose that an immaterial, timeless mind is the cause of the universe.

 

KCA is an inductive argument and more specifically, an abductive argument (argument to the best explanation).

 

The first premise is a logical axiom (intuitive). We cannot prove it; however, everything that we experience seems to verify the validity of this axiom. Premise 2 is supported by the best scientific modeling and data that we have today. It was not always believed that the universe began to exist as for many years the "steady state" model was the leading model. However, since the Big Bang theory was developed, it has only been further verified by experimental data. The Big Bang model seems to indicate that the universe began in the finite past.

 

I think that you are mistaken on your third point in that KCA is not used, necessarily to support the argument from design (teleological argument) or the moral argument. Often, the three are used together as a cumulative case to argue for the existence of God, and a personal, moral God at that. However, each argument stands on its own.

 

Good questions.

 

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.

 

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.

[LNC]

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.

 

Why does it follow that nothing can exist before time started? A timeless, changeless being could exist in a timeless existence. It is metaphysically possible.

 

If no one promotes it, it suggests that there may be a reason for that and unsoundness may be that reason; however, if you believe the concept to be sound, I would like to hear your defense of it.

 

I didn't say that the First Cause came into existence simultaneous with the universe, I said the cause and the effect were simultaneous, which means that the cause acted simultaneous to the effect. That does not, however, suggest that the cause came into existence simultaneous to the effect as that would suggest self-causation which is a logically problematic, if not impossible occurrence. The cause existed timelessly and changelessly until the act of creation.

 

I think you have things a bit turned around which is why I think you come to a faulty conclusion. Time is not required for causality, time is an effect of causality. In other words, time does not cause creation, time is an effect of creation. Therefore, you do not and can not have a self-caused cause. Time never makes anything happen, time is the measure of things that have happened.

 

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.

 

Your first statement is question-begging. You have not proved that you have merely assumed that and that is the basis of this argument so you are not allowed to assume the conclusion within your argument. You cannot assume that nature existed before nature existed to cause nature to exist.

 

The Kalam argument assumes neither of your premises, it simply states that everything that began to exist has a cause. Since the universe includes all of nature, it is not possible that nature existed prior to the universe existing.

 

Your last paragraph logically follows until your last statement that time must have existed before the universe. That is defeated if the first cause existed timelessly causally prior to creating the universe.

 

P1) C exists timelessly and changelessly.

P2) C creates, time begins by doing so.

C) The universe, which includes all matter/energy & space/time exists.

 

This scenario works logically as the cause exists causally prior to the effect, yet in a state that doesn't violate the logic of past-eternal time or matter.

 

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.

 

I don't argue that time exists before time began as you can see above. If you mean the first premise of Kalam, it does not hook the reader to think of natural causes other than the fact that every natural effect has a cause; however, it does not specify that the cause must be natural. The argument does not specify a causal type; however, that can be inferred by the fact that natural explanations are excluded due to the lack of nature to bring about the effect (to be the cause). It is not an a priori assumption, it is arrived at through inference to the best explanation, based upon the deductive reasoning that preceded. I don't think that the first premise is assailable. If you believe that it is, it is up to you to provide the proof as all of our intuitions and evidence proves out the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause. All you have to do to defeat that premise is to provide one piece of empirically provable evidence. Again, you cannot use the universe as that piece of evidence as I believe you have tried to do in the past as you cannot prove empirically that the universe did not have a cause, you can only assume so, and that will not serve as evidence. So, if you have any evidence of an effect that began to exist without a cause, then you are welcome to provide it. If not, then we are justified in holding premise 1 to be valid.

[LNC]

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.

 

Why wouldn't an infinite, immaterial being fit the description of a First Cause?

[LNC]

My question was "How can a immaterial being be said to exist?" I did not put together the words "immaterial" and "thing." So your first question is a puzzler.

 

Your response is in terms of mind, which you believe to be essentially a "ghost in the machine." Recent scientific evidence brings this view of mind into question. Your concerns about free will vs. determinism aren't really pertinent here. It's just that the independent immaterial mind serves as a poor analogy for an "immaterial being."

 

"Material being" makes sense. Simply pre-pending a negating syllable to a word in a phrase that makes sense does not mean the negation of that phrase makes sense. I understand how a material being can be said to exist. But you have not yet explained how an immaterial being can be said to exist.

 

"Material being" is English. There are plenty of material beings around to serve as proof and to study. "Immaterial being", though derived from English words so far might as well be Jaberwokky.

 

When you put together words in a nonsensical way and then posit that the being exists, it seems like you should be able to provide some explanation of how such a being could be said to exist. I'm still waiting for you or somebody who believes in immaterial beings to provide such an explanation.

 

Perhaps you are equating God with immaterial being? Is that it? "Immaterial being" is just another term for God?

 

We consider many immaterial things to exist. For example, you had thoughts that you put together to type out this post. Were those thoughts material or immaterial? If they were immaterial, did they really exist? I think that the logical answer is yes to both questions, therefore, immaterial things can exist. These are ideas that go back to the ancient philosophers who posited that forms of things actually exist and that the physical thing is just that thing in a state of becoming. I see no reason to believe that immaterial things cannot exist and the fact that we cannot see them does not make them any less real, just as your thoughts, because I cannot see them, are no less real.

 

I don't think you have made a case on mind in your few sentences. If we don't have minds then we don't have free will, that is basic metaphysics and not in dispute, ultimately. Although Dennett and others try to skirt around this issue with some "fancy footwork," it is what it is and they cannot avoid the reality of the situation. You may depict mind as a "ghost in the machine," however, I think that description is overly simplistic.

 

Can you explain how you know material beings to exist from a materialist perspective? In other words, I would like for you to explain your epistemology to me and then to justify your beliefs based upon that epistemology. Unless you can do that, the rest of your post is, shall we say, immaterial. So, let's start there before we move any further.

[LNC]

I love that answer. It's the first time I actually find a human side to you. Very good.

 

And I agree. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I keep an open mind to the supernatural. It's not like I have closed my mind and refuse to ever think of the possibility, not at all.

 

The thing is though: if in nature we can find support for the idea of boson particles, quarks, or superstrings, and they can be presumed to exist because of indirect observations. But also that the theories are consistent with what we can test, see, measure, prove, experiment with, etc, then of course these things are very likely to be true.

 

However, to assume that N-Rays exists just because someone says so, doesn't immediately make them exist.

 

There is of course a probability to the existence of the things we can't see. And if the probability for God to exist increases somehow, I would change my mind. But the problem is, I'm actually waiting for a god, or gods, or supernatural entities of any kind, to make themselves known to me, but they consistently refuse. Why is that? I'm not worthy?

 

And on another note, a quote from Martin Gardner, a philosopher who refuse the arguments to prove God's existence, but accept God solely on the basis of fideism, "For Kierkegaard, whose fideism so strongly influenced Barth and Unamuno and Heiddegger, the desire to find rational evidence for God betrays a weakness of faith." In other words, if you succeed in proving God with your different arguments, then you have lost the honest and pure faith. Read Heb 11:1.

 

Thanks, I knew there was a human in here somewhere, glad he could show himself to you.

 

Han, I would hope that you would require more than "we can find support for the idea" when making decisions about what you believe. I don't think that the evidence for the Higgs boson particle is that certain yet, and strings and superstrings may not even be testable in our lifetime, let alone verifiable. The only indirect evidence that we have is in the form of mathematical formulas that seem to work, but require a bit of jury-rigging to do so. Technically, string and superstring aren't really considered to be branches of physics yet, as they cannot be directly tested. They would still fall into the realm of metaphysics. Now, it is not wrong to base one's beliefs on metaphysics, but it should be understood as such and not be confused with science or physics in particular.

 

Specifically, what type of evidence would you desire from God? I mean, in what way would you expect him to manifest himself to you?

 

I would disagree with Gardner as you might suspect. If I ask for proof that my airline does its maintenance and trains its pilots, it doesn't require any less faith for me to step onto a multi ton aircraft and expect that it will overcome the laws of gravity to get me to my destination without the law of gravity eventually winning out prior to my arrival. Just because the pilots have their training and the aircraft has been maintained doesn't mean that it won't suck in a flock of geese and kill the engines.

 

So, even though I can be reasonably certain that God exists based upon logical arguments and empirical evidence, I still cannot see him and must trust that my reasoning abilities are operating properly, that I have not missed a key piece of data, or that my experiences are not mere illusion. It still requires faith, no matter which side of the equation we are on. The same goes for the naturalist as they cannot be certain of anything either. If naturalism is true, then there is no reason that one should be able to justify their beliefs. In other words, if we are just matter in motion, then reasoning is not something that we could trust, we could never know if we had true beliefs. We could never really trust our faculties. It would require faith in that worldview as well.

[Ouroboros]

Why does it follow that nothing can exist before time started? A timeless, changeless being could exist in a timeless existence. It is metaphysically possible.

What?

 

So then space, matter, and time could have existed before time began. Why are you arguing that nothing could have existed before Big Bang, if you now argue that it could? Be consistent to your point and argument, or you will constantly be in contradiction.

 

The whole Kalam argument according to Craig is based on the idea that space, matter, and time did NOT exist before time BEGAN. But now you're arguing that it did.

 

Make up your mind.

[Ouroboros]

Han, I would hope that you would require more than "we can find support for the idea" when making decisions about what you believe. I don't think that the evidence for the Higgs boson particle is that certain yet, and strings and superstrings may not even be testable in our lifetime, let alone verifiable. The only indirect evidence that we have is in the form of mathematical formulas that seem to work, but require a bit of jury-rigging to do so. Technically, string and superstring aren't really considered to be branches of physics yet, as they cannot be directly tested. They would still fall into the realm of metaphysics. Now, it is not wrong to base one's beliefs on metaphysics, but it should be understood as such and not be confused with science or physics in particular.

So it is not wrong to base one's belief on mataphysical ideas, but it is wrong to base them on mathematical and cosmological concepts, ideas, and theories? Wow, that's awesome, that's really good. Fairies exist because we can believe in them, but singularity doesn't exist because it's only based on advanced mathematical models.

 

Basically, your argument is:

 

1) Anything that science can theorize about: deny it, don't believe it, argue against it.

 

2) Anything you can fantasize about and believe as metaphysical: believe it beyond and against any reason.

 

You are demanding evidence and proof for the singularity and time before time. But then you argue that Kalam somehow proves that God existed before time. It's irrational.

 

Specifically, what type of evidence would you desire from God? I mean, in what way would you expect him to manifest himself to you?

Specifically, he could prove himself by actually showing himself. He could send Jesus. He could wake up dead. He could heal the sick. He could do miracles. But he does not, because "he can't be tested." That's the religious and Biblical answer, isn't it? God doesn't want to prove himself, because we're supposed to believe without evidence.

 

All your arguments are based on the premise that science, reason, and evidence should be rejected in favor of complete belief in incomplete and inconsistent arguments.

 

If the Kalam is based on that matter, space, and time could not exist before Big Bang, then you have to uphold that premise, even with God.

[Ouroboros]

P1) C exists timelessly and changelessly.

P2) C creates, time begins by doing so.

C) The universe, which includes all matter/energy & space/time exists.

P1 assumes P2. Invalid premise. To exist before time requires time. "Timelessly" is just a word, not a provable concept. Prove that "timeless" exists. Why do you want proof of the singularity, but you refuse to give proof of anything which is "timeless"?

 

From what I've read and heard, Craig's argument is based on the hotel paradox, and his conclusion is: "an actual infinite cannot exist."

 

Something "timeless" is infinite and actual.

 

Can't you see the contradiction here?

 

God is an actual infinite. The singularity is an actual infinite. But to you, the singularity can't exist, but God can't. It's inconsistent.

[NotBlinded]

P1) C exists timelessly and changelessly.

P2) C creates, time begins by doing so.

C) The universe, which includes all matter/energy & space/time exists.

P1 assumes P2. Invalid premise. To exist before time requires time. "Timelessly" is just a word, not a provable concept. Prove that "timeless" exists. Why do you want proof of the singularity, but you refuse to give proof of anything which is "timeless"?

 

From what I've read and heard, Craig's argument is based on the hotel paradox, and his conclusion is: "an actual infinite cannot exist."

 

Something "timeless" is infinite and actual.

 

Can't you see the contradiction here?

 

God is an actual infinite. The singularity is an actual infinite. But to you, the singularity can't exist, but God can't. It's inconsistent.

You have nailed it Hans. I noticed this again in his latest posts tonight. His metaphysical concept is okay ie, God, but any metaphysical concept relating to science can't. This is why his arguments are severely inconsistent. He switches to wanting evidence when a metaphysical concept such as the singularity or string theory yet there is no requirement for evidence for his. He realizes this, so I wonder if he want us to admit they are metaphysical in nature? Well, that is why it's called the Metaphysics of Space-Time isn't it?

 

I suppose a mathematical formula would put it into the realm of physics, yet what would happen if this mathematical formula proved the existence of God? He wants God to be a constant that doesn't require evidence. Can we just start calling the singularity God and make him happy?

[Ouroboros]

You have nailed it Hans. I noticed this again in his latest posts tonight. His metaphysical concept is okay ie, God, but any metaphysical concept relating to science can't. This is why his arguments are severely inconsistent. He switches to wanting evidence when a metaphysical concept such as the singularity or string theory yet there is no requirement for evidence for his. He realizes this, so I wonder if he want us to admit they are metaphysical in nature? Well, that is why it's called the Metaphysics of Space-Time isn't it?

Or maybe he realizes it but he doesn't want to admit that the real truth is between the two points of arguments we are making. The only true answer is: we cannot really know what is "before" or what "non-temporal" is. Our limitations as humans hinders us to really know or understand these things. The paradoxes only proves that we're human and do not understand nature yet. The solutions is not to invent new paradoxes.

 

I honestly didn't know that Space-time was considered metaphysics. But I have no problem with it.

 

I suppose a mathematical formula would put it into the realm of physics, yet what would happen if this mathematical formula proved the existence of God? He wants God to be a constant that doesn't require evidence. Can we just start calling the singularity God and make him happy?

I think the term God is misgiving since it's too wide and too narrow. It's too wide in the sense that everyone got their own version of what "God" is, and it's too narrow in the sense that everyone thinks they're the only one who got the right image of God (and it's usually very limited).

 

For me, singularity is God (or pre-God). But with the word "God" here, I do not think of the Abraham/Jesus God, or Plato/Aristotle God either. It's God as Nature. What is, is. There's no need for, what is not, is.

[agnosticator]

Why wouldn't an infinite,

 

Fantasy...

 

immaterial

 

More fantasy...

 

...being fit the description of a First Cause?

 

Because you are arguing nonsense, and my time, which is REAL, is not worth reiterating what has been explained over and over and over...to infinity...

[LNC]

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?

 

Why can't you accept it as a valid thought?

 

Phanta

 

For a couple of reasons. First, I believe that each of us has the intuition that we are in control of what we are typing on the screen, which means that we believe that we have intentionality to type them and the freedom to type or not type; to choose to type one idea or another. That is not possible if our minds are reducible to our brains. We would be determined and not have freedom, maybe just the illusion of freedom.

 

Second, if we don't have freedom over what we are expressing our keyboards onto our screens, then our conversation, as I said before, is completely meaningless. We have no control over what we say or how we respond, it is determined by past events that are stored up in our brains that cause us to react in a determined manner. Therefore, our conversation is ultimately meaningless, like machines beeping at each other with no control over what is beeped or why it is beeped. There is no ultimate correlation between one machines beeps and the other's. I don't think that we believe that is what is going on when we interact with one another, and if it is, we might as well just watch something trivial on TV like Dancing with the Stars as it would be just as meaningful and meaningless. (sorry if anyone here is a fan of that show, but somehow, I doubt it)

[LNC]

LNC, you keep accusing us of mixing science with metaphysics yet you do this constantly.

 

I speak of both of them, but I try not to speak of metaphysics as science or science as metaphysics. That is where it runs into trouble and that is where I try to call it out. You are free to call me on it as well if you see me doing it.

[LNC]

What kind of thing might that not be in the real world? Why do you need to add an outside agent to an existent in order to satisfy the formal cause? You are not taking your insights into this deep enough. You are skipping out and adding another agent as if this agent is somehow controlling all processes going on in every little speck of sand through every sentient being. We have discussed this before and it is the processes obeying a command and this is obviously a reflection of your worldview. Lawgiver and law-abiders. Nouns and verbs.

 

Here is the problem, if there is not physical world then there is no physical causal agent. It is not a matter of adding gratuitously as there needs to be a cause for the effect (the universe), I am simply positing a cause for the universe that is immaterial as the universe that was created contains all material reality and that cannot be the cause as it is the effect. I am not sure what you are getting at with the rest of your post, maybe you could elaborate.

 

Lets take this even deeper LNC. Let's get into some metaphysics here, which you do all the time so don't accuse me of confusing the two. Come along and play with me here. What processes in your body are really voluntary? When you decide to move your fingers do you know how you do that? Do you just decide or do you have to think about deciding to decide? Do you have to turn your brain on every morning to start all the processes or does your organism just kick on without thought? Of course it does. It's spontaneous isn't it? Everything is a process and this process doesn't need an outside agent controlling it (including our idea of us). It's this illusion of a separate controller that emcompasses your worldview. As oddbird calls it, "a ghost in the machine". God, being, whatever name, didn't decide anything because it isn't separate from process. It IS the process. It just happens.

 

Taken deeper the formal cause pre-exists in everything. There are no objects truly at rest. Science now knows this, we know this; Plato and Aristotle may not have known this. As others here have also been saying, the effect is in the cause. Davka stated this on the previous page. "Nature apparently has the ability for genuine spontaneity." Why can't this "agent" be part and parcel of existents? Wouldn't that be more logical than having a programmer/lawgiver sitting in front of some massive computer pumping out DNA, adjusting electrons, protons, ions, etc, having a few of them skip orbits, or some that will attach to others, on and on ad infinitum with complete knowledge? Again, do you have to turn your brain on every morning? You claim this being to be immaterial correct? Where does immaterial exist other than in material itself?

 

Yes, when I raise my finger or type on my computer, I decide and then I act. How do I know this? I can decide to do it and then not do it because I have made a decision to override my decision. It is more than just a random thing and more than just an automatic thing. Sure, some parts of our bodies work on a subconscious level, like breathing when I am asleep; however, I won't act unless I intend to do so and intentionality is a major problem for the naturalist. If you don't believe me, read some of the literature from Dennett, Tye, Searle and others. 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. Is that what you think? If not, why not?

 

Can you give me evidence that nature has the ability for genuine spontaneity? Here is the problem with your thesis, if there is no material existence, then there is nothing to be part and parcel of. Where no information exists, there can be no programming. You are assuming the existence of matter to be the cause of matter and that is question-begging.

 

You ask if I am immaterial and my answer is that I am both material with an immaterial essence to me. I am not sure what you are asking in your last question; however, if you are asking where other immaterial things exist, that isn't too hard, as you are interacting with them as you read this, your thoughts are immaterial and interact with your material self.

 

Hans posted this in response to bornagainatheist:

 

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

 

Tie this all together and you may be able to see that no one has ever seen a cause. There are no separate events in nature.

 

I think that is an a priori assumption on Han's part. I cannot do anything with a person's a priori assumptions as they don't come to them evidentially, they simply assume them.