The Existence of God & The Kalam Cosmological Argument

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Anguspure, I think we are closing in on the underlying issue. It is an issue ultimately of a self-refuting position. It seems clear to me that we are talking with a person who thinks that we cannot know anything about the cause of spacetime if indeed it comes into being. The words used to indicate this are "undefinable", which have been used several times as rejoinders to what we have written.

Such a position is self-refuting. It is akin to writing, "I cannot write a sentence in English."

If we cannot know how time begins if indeed it does, if such a concept is "undefinable", then we would not know that we could not know how it begins. But clearly the person telling us this wants us to believe that he really does know what he is talking about! :)

Such discussions really serve to strengthen my own views. To see that God has built into reality things like logic to make His existence undeniable to us is really something that is awe-inspiring and serves only to confirm what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Anguspure
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Several things need to be said:

1. I am not convinced that the universe had a beginning because of the BGV theorem. I know it began because I have a personal relationship with its Creator.

2. I appealed to the BGV theorem as one line of supporting evidence for premise 2 of the Kalam argument for your benefit, an argument which in no way had anything to do with my being born again and coming to know Jesus Christ, the Creator of all that exists.

3. The main reasons given for thinking that premise 2 is more plausible than its negation are the two philosophical arguments Anguspure has already provided which are defended by professional philosophers which themselves are further supported by various lines of scientific evidence, of which the BGV theorem is but one.

4. I know the universe had a beginning and every piece of evidence that astronomers and cosmologists have unearthed in their research confirms this.

5. I know that from nothing, nothing comes and that men like Quentin Smith, and Dan Dennett, although being very smart, have existential and emotional misgivings about the theological implications of a cosmic beginning and thus they would rather maintain that the universe can come from nothing, by nothing, for nothing or that the universe created itself.

6. The Kalam is not an argument that compels assent. It is no aim of the Kalam to convince those that are unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads, but rather, serves as a part of a cumulative case for theism in general and Christianity in particular.

7. I am discussing the Kalam here because this is what the thread is about and the Kalam interests me.

8. For a more detailed treatment of the Kalam, feel free to visit my blog at Mere Apologetics

1,2. Ok so you realise that while the bgv might appear to point to a beginning of our universe, it's not an absolute perfect proof. Therefore premise 2 is questionable.

3. What are the others because the bgv is not evidence as you have conceded.

4. Opinion. I agree with you. But that doesn't mean the kca is any more correct.

5. I've not mentioned these men nor have I claimed something from nothing. Ive simply argued that quantum mechanics is still very much a mystery, making claims about causes can lead to mistakes.

6. Irrelevant to anything I've said.

7. Cool. I discuss to remove it from the foundation of ones belief system as it is a god of the gaps building block.

8. Cheers I'll take a look
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
1,2. Ok so you realise that while the bgv might appear to point to a beginning of our universe, it's not an absolute perfect proof. Therefore premise 2 is questionable.

3. What are the others because the bgv is not evidence as you have conceded.

4. Opinion. I agree with you. But that doesn't mean the kca is any more correct.

5. I've not mentioned these men nor have I claimed something from nothing. Ive simply argued that quantum mechanics is still very much a mystery, making claims about causes can lead to mistakes.

6. Irrelevant to anything I've said.

7. Cool. I discuss to remove it from the foundation of ones belief system as it is a god of the gaps building block.

8. Cheers I'll take a look

How is the Kalam a god of the gaps argument?
 
Upvote 0

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How is the concept of a timelessly existing cause of the universe creating the universe nonsensical?
Timelessly existing cause is a self contradictory term. You cannot have cause apart from time.

You have either one of two options:

1. A timelessly existing cause of the universe creates the universe

or

2. The universe pops into being without a cause from nothing, by nothing, for nothing.

It seems indefensible to me for you to claim that nothing can create something. Talk about nonsensical!!!
Again timelessly existing cause is self contradictory. Also I still don't see why you keep giving dichotomies as though only one of those could be true? What if;
3. The universe pops into existence from nothing with a cause.
4. The existence of the universe is eternal.
I'm sure physicists could come up with a whole bunch more.
I'm not saying I subscribe to these, just illustrating that there are more options than you have identified. Why limit the scope of possibilities to such a narrow field?

I am arguing that something created spacetime and you are arguing that nothing created spacetime!

How is your position preferable to mine again?
Something or nothing is irrelevant to my point. I was saying that a cause for the beginning of time is an irrational proposition because causality requires time to already exist. Can't put it any simpler.

If you place a ball on a cushion, an indentation will appear where the ball is resting on the cushion. The indentation occurs simultaneously the moment the ball touches the cushion.

This is one of numerous examples of an instantaneous or simultaneous cause effect relation.
You're getting yourself confused here. Placing the ball on the cushion is the cause, ball sinking into cushion is the effect.
Try again.

Why is it undefinable?

Saying it is so by definition is not a good argument.
We need time to define cause and effect. In a timeless universe there can be no causality.

Cause precedes effect. Isn't that how we define something as causal. Do you disagree?

But you agree that nothing comes from nothing.
We can't make any claims about nothing because it isn't part of our experience or observation.

Let me stop you right there because you're wrong. T=0 is not the beginning. T=1 is the beginning of time.

Is t=1, not t=0. Zero is zero.
??? I don't know what your issue is here. My stopwatch starts at 0, the speedo in my car starts at 0, I was 0 years old when I was born. Why 1 though? Why not 0.1 or 3?

Why say I'm wrong without giving any reason.

the word moment implies time.

You just contradicted yourself. You spoke of a moment, you then speak of this moment as "no time".
A moment = single point. As in a mathematical point. Time is measured in intervals. I can have a mathematical point on a line that has zero dimension. It occupies 0 length of the line. Same as a point in time occupies 0 length of time. It's not contradictory, mathematics uses these kind of concepts regularly.

This is where you are violating one of the fundamental laws of logic. Nothing cannot be something.

Another violation of a fundamental law of logic. It is either or, not both and.
I'm being deliberately contradictory to illustrate that we simply don't have the language to describe the conditions of a singularity. To our understanding the properties of a singularity simply don't make any logical sense.

Eg. The language that explains quantum mechanics is mathematics, and our minds have a hard time grasping it because it is counterintuitive and illogical based on our experience of the macro universe.

Sure they would. Unless you don't count being illogical as wrong. If that is the case, the least of your worries is the Kalam.


If that were the case, you would not know it. Your position is self-stultifying. It is like saying we cannot know anything about the earliest moments of the universe or how it came to be. If we can't know anything about these things, you would not know that nothing can be known. Thus the statement is self-refuting and necessarily false.
In what way is it self refuting? The laws of physics as we know them cease to apply at a singularity, if the laws of physics don't apply why would the laws of logic?

I'm saying we don't know, not that we can't know. We might know one day but it won't be through philosophy.

Self refuting statements are necessarily false and logic cannot be set aside just because we are talking about cosmic beginnings.

You earlier alluded to something as a "logical implication of my views", you then set aside logic to defend your own view. Logic is not something we pick up and put down when it suits us.
Which part is self refuting. I'll maintain that it's more plausible that logic does not apply where the laws of physics don't apply than the opposite. No one has yet put forward a convincing reason to think otherwise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Timelessly existing cause is a self contradictory term. You cannot have cause apart from time.


Again timelessly existing cause is self contradictory. Also I still don't see why you keep giving dichotomies as though only one of those could be true? What if;
3. The universe pops into existence from nothing with a cause.
4. The existence of the universe is eternal.
I'm sure physicists could come up with a whole bunch more.
I'm not saying I subscribe to these, just illustrating that there are more options than you have identified. Why limit the scope of possibilities to such a narrow field?


Something or nothing is irrelevant to my point. I was saying that a cause for the beginning of time is an irrational proposition because causality requires time to already exist. Can't put it any simpler.


You're getting yourself confused here. Placing the ball on the cushion is the cause, ball sinking into cushion is the effect.
Try again.


We need time to define cause and effect. In a timeless universe there can be no causality.

Cause precedes effect. Isn't that how we define something as causal. Do you disagree?


We can't make any claims about nothing because it isn't part of our experience or observation.


??? I don't know what your issue is here. My stopwatch starts at 0, the speedo in my car starts at 0, I was 0 years old when I was born. Why 1 though? Why not 0.1 or 3?

Why say I'm wrong without giving any reason.


A moment = single point. As in a mathematical point. Time is measured in intervals. I can have a mathematical point on a line that has zero dimension. It occupies 0 length of the line. Same as a point in time occupies 0 length of time. It's not contradictory, mathematics uses these kind of concepts regularly.


I'm being deliberately contradictory to illustrate that we simply don't have the language to describe the conditions of a singularity. To our understanding the properties of a singularity simply don't make any logical sense.

Eg. The language that explains quantum mechanics is mathematics, and our minds have a hard time grasping it because it is counterintuitive and illogical based on our experience of the macro universe.


In what way is it self refuting? The laws of physics as we know them cease to apply at a singularity, if the laws of physics don't apply why would the laws of logic?

I'm saying we don't know, not that we can't know. We might know one day but it won't be through philosophy.


Which part is self refuting. I'll maintain that it's more plausible that logic does not apply where the laws of physics don't apply than the opposite. No one has yet put forward a convincing reason to think otherwise.

If logic does not apply, then why are you using logic to object to what I am saying?

If logic does not apply, then why are you saying that a timelessly existing being is a self contradictory concept? To say something is self contradictory is to assume the validity of logical reasoning.

You define quantum mechanics and its constituents as "undefinable". Notice the emphasis in italics.

If these things are undefinable, you would not be defining them. But you are. So you do think these things are definable.

You can't appeal to logic to disprove it.

The following statement, "I can't type a sentence in English", is a self defeating statement.

You've made similar statements about cosmic beginnings. Such self defeating statements are necessarily false.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Anguspure
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How is the Kalam a god of the gaps argument?

The op says he uses the kca together with other arguments to point to Gods existence. But the kca is a bad argument because:

Premise 1 is not a truth statement
Premise 2 is not a truth statement

Therefore using it to show God was the immaterial timeless uncaused cause for the universe is placing God in the gap that science has not reached yet.
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Timelessly existing cause is a self contradictory term. You cannot have cause apart from time.
A potential cause may exist timelessly as long as it is not itself an effect. Time is observed concurrent with the effect at the point that a potential cause becomes an actual cause.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The op says he uses the kca together with other arguments to point to Gods existence. But the kca is a bad argument because:

Premise 1 is not a truth statement
Premise 2 is not a truth statement

Therefore using it to show God was the immaterial timeless uncaused cause for the universe is placing God in the gap that science has not reached yet.

The Kalam does not argue for the existence of God. It is an argument for a cause of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Happy new year!
A potential cause may exist timelessly as long as it is not itself an effect.
Not sure I understand exactly what you mean by 'not itself an effect'. But ok I'll accept that a timeless potential cause may exist for the sake of argument even though it is a rather abstract concept.

Time is observed concurrent with the effect at the point that a potential cause becomes an actual cause.
I'm a bit confused with what you are saying here. Do you mean that the cause and effect occur simultaneously? What does 'time is observed concurrent with the effect' mean?

I'm not arguing, I just need some clarification so I can address what you actually mean.
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Happy new year!

Not sure I understand exactly what you mean by 'not itself an effect'. But ok I'll accept that a timeless potential cause may exist for the sake of argument even though it is a rather abstract concept.
Apologies for the garbled grammar.
By writing 'not itself an effect' I am qualifying the statement as to only apply to a potential cause that itself has not been caused. A cause that has in turn been caused by something else is, itself, an effect.

I'm a bit confused with what you are saying here. Do you mean that the cause and effect occur simultaneously? What does 'time is observed concurrent with the effect' mean?
I hope I can clarify this for you:

What I am saying is that within an entirely isolated case of cause and effect, time is only accountable concurrent with the point at which effect begins to take place.

When we consider the concept for any given case I am suggesting that time for the potential cause is wholly irrelevant unless it has become an actual cause.

My point being that the uncaused potential cause (posited by the argument, in order to avoid the impossible actual infinite) may exist timelessly.
It is concurrent with an observed effect that the potential cause becomes an actual cause, and time is accounted.

This also relates to an earlier post where I wrote:
I think the way that this is dealt with is by saying that God enters spacetime concurrent with the point at which He creates it. That the Timeless God at the point of creation has now become the Eternal God subsequent to His creation and interaction with time.

Happy New Year BTW.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If logic does not apply, then why are you using logic to object to what I am saying?
With good reason. Logic requires certain conditions to operate under. Example:
Wikipedia: Causality
...causality is generally accepted to be temporally bound so that causes always precede their dependent effects.
Causality is contingent upon time existing to be conceptually meaningful. So if I imagine an existence without time I can infer that causality indeed cannot exist in such a realm because the very thing upon which it's existence is contingent is absent.

If logic does not apply, then why are you saying that a timelessly existing being is a self contradictory concept? To say something is self contradictory is to assume the validity of logical reasoning.
'Timelessly existing being' is a valid concept, 'timeless cause' is self contradictory because cause can only be defined within time.

You define quantum mechanics and its constituents as "undefinable". Notice the emphasis in italics.

If these things are undefinable, you would not be defining them. But you are. So you do think these things are definable.
Did I say that? QM is well defined by the mathematical theory that describes it. But it's counterintuitive and seemingly illogical to our minds.

You can't appeal to logic to disprove it.

The following statement, "I can't type a sentence in English", is a self defeating statement.
If the necessary conditions upon which logic is contingent do not exist, then I think it logical to say logic doesn't apply under those conditions.

You've made similar statements about cosmic beginnings. Such self defeating statements are necessarily false.
Cosmic beginnings are one such condition where the conditions for causality to be definable are not met.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Kalam does not argue for the existence of God. It is an argument for a cause of the universe.
Are you addressing that to me? 1+1=2 it doesn't equal 3 okay? Just so you know.

And just to be clear, the kca argues for a cause of the universe, NOT for God. It doesn't argue for the existence of God. Ok?

(Now do you see why I write like this?)
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
With good reason. Logic requires certain conditions to operate under. Example:

Causality is contingent upon time existing to be conceptually meaningful.

Why?

timeless cause is self contradictory because cause can only be defined within time.

Why?


Did I say that? QM is well defined by the mathematical theory that describes it. But it's counterintuitive and seemingly illogical to our minds.

Seemingly?


If the necessary conditions upon which logic is contingent do not exist, then I think it logical to say logic doesn't apply under those conditions.

If logic does not apply, then all bets are off, and nothing can be said to be self contradictory.


Cosmic beginnings are one such condition where the conditions for causality to be definable are not met.

Why think this?

Why think that the three fundamental laws of logic only obtain in a state of affairs containing the universe?

Suppose some particular state of affairs exists. Suppose this state of affairs is characterized by God existing alone and that no universe exists in this state of affairs. Let us call this state of affairs (sa). Suppose in (sa) that the indicative proposition p explicated as (p) is true.

Why is (p) not (p) if (p) is (p) in (sa)? This is the law of identity.

Why in (sa) is not (p) not non (p)? This is the law of non contradiction.

Why in (sa) is (p) not either (p) or non (p)? This is the law of excluded middle.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Are you addressing that to me? 1+1=2 it doesn't equal 3 okay? Just so you know.

And just to be clear, the kca argues for a cause of the universe, NOT for God. It doesn't argue for the existence of God. Ok?

(Now do you see why I write like this?)

I'm confused.

You said the KCA was a god of the gaps argument. I explained why it wasn't. You then reply by saying 1 and 1 is 2, not 3??!??
 
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm confused.

You said the KCA was a god of the gaps argument. I explained why it wasn't. You then reply by saying 1 and 1 is 2, not 3??!??

If you actually went back and read my post, you would see I am referencing those who use the kca to help show God exists. But if the kca is used in this way it is the God of the gaps.

Following this you decided to teach what is already obvious, so I did the same.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
P.s. The kca has failed because of premise 2 as it's still very much open as to whether the universe has a beginning according to theoretical physicists such as Sean Carroll.
Yes the question is open. This is the nature of the scientific endeavor, to always remain skeptical and questioning. But for the question to be closed is not necessary for the KCA to be successful as a reasonable and plausible and even possible argument for the Cause of the universe.

After all nobody (in the apologetics community at least) is claiming that the KCA is a rock solid, concrete argument.

Rather it is an argument that shows that on the balance of the evidence a cause for the universe is more plausible than not.
http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander Vilenkin.pdf
For the KCA to be successful as a reasonable and plausible explanation for the cause of the universe it is only necessary to show that each of the 2 premise is more plausible than the competing hypothesis.

When we go further and the KCA is used as part of an argument for the existence of God it does not stand alone, rather it forms part of an accumulative argument that may be made up of a number of mutually supporting arguments such as (and not limited to):
  • The Leibniz Cosmological Argument
  • The Cosmic Fine Tuning Argument
  • The Bioinformatics Argument
  • The Objective Morality Argument
Furthermore, even the very most objective of Theistic apologists note their own experiential, subjective perception of God as an important factor in support the objective arguments.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
P.s. The kca has failed because of premise 2 as it's still very much open as to whether the universe has a beginning according to theoretical physicists such as Sean Carroll.


That some theoretical physicists claim the jury is still out so to speak regarding the universe and whether it has a beginning does not mean the Kalam is invalid or unsound. At most, it shows that there is no unanimous agreement among physicists on whether or not the universe has a beginning.

Support was given to show why premise 2 is more plausibly true than its negation and if you object to it, then you need to give reasons why.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Anguspure
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
39
✟67,894.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes the question is open. This is the nature of the scientific endeavor, to always remain skeptical and questioning. But for the question to be closed is not necessary for the KCA to be successful as a reasonable and plausible and even possible argument for the Cause of the universe.

After all nobody (in the apologetics community at least) is claiming that the KCA is a rock solid, concrete argument.

Rather it is an argument that shows that on the balance of the evidence a cause for the universe is more plausible than not.
http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander Vilenkin.pdf
For the KCA to be successful as a reasonable and plausible explanation for the cause of the universe it is only necessary to show that each of the 2 premise is more plausible than the competing hypothesis.

When we go further and the KCA is used as part of an argument for the existence of God it does not stand alone, rather it forms part of an accumulative argument that may be made up of a number of mutually supporting arguments such as (and not limited to):
  • The Leibniz Cosmological Argument
  • The Cosmic Fine Tuning Argument
  • The Bioinformatics Argument
  • The Objective Morality Argument
Furthermore, even the very most objective of Theistic apologists note their own experiential, subjective perception of God as an important factor in support the objective arguments.

Bravo.

From what we see, it appears that the Kalam is more often misunderstood by those to whom it is presented. This has been my experience at least.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Anguspure
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Everybodyknows

The good guys lost
Dec 19, 2016
796
763
Australia
✟45,191.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why think this?

Why think that the three fundamental laws of logic only obtain in a state of affairs containing the universe?

Suppose some particular state of affairs exists. Suppose this state of affairs is characterized by God existing alone and that no universe exists in this state of affairs. Let us call this state of affairs (sa). Suppose in (sa) that the indicative proposition p explicated as (p) is true.

Why is (p) not (p) if (p) is (p) in (sa)? This is the law of identity.

Why in (sa) is not (p) not non (p)? This is the law of non contradiction.

Why in (sa) is (p) not either (p) or non (p)? This is the law of excluded middle.
Ok, you won't see this often on Internet forums.

I'm going to have to humbly concede this point. Well argued.

I was so focused on causality that I wasn't thinking clearly. I'm still not 100% convinced that there can't exist some condition in some other existence where one or more laws don't hold, but discussion of whether the laws of logic are absolute is a debate for greater minds than mine.

I see that to continue on with reasonable discussion I need to accept them.

My real problem here is with what I see as violations of the principle of causality.

So, lets debate...

TBC.
 
Upvote 0