The Existence of God & The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[anonymous person]

Now I'm perplexed. You have gone to great lengths in this thread to argue the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe but you don't accept that the universe started hot and dense about 14 billion years ago? This seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed on by physicists.

Seems you're making my argument for me!

I see no reason to think that appealing to the Standard Model's predictions that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old and being born again are mutually exclusive.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I see no reason to think that appealing to the Standard Model's predictions that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old and being born again are mutually exclusive.

Nor do I.

But you stated that you never claimed to believe the universe to be 14 billion years old. I'm curious weather you accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe or you have some different idea? And if so on what grounds you justify it.

 

[anonymous person]

Nor do I.

But you stated that you never claimed to believe the universe to be 14 billion years old. I'm curious weather you accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe or you have some different idea? And if so on what grounds you justify it.

If that is what the evidence shows then sure. I am actually not concerned at all about how old the universe is. Only that it had a beginning. The kalam does not argue that the universe is a certain age so I think the question is moot.

 

[Anguspure]

I think then, that you must be able to understand why the KCA is rejected, yes?

I can understand that for a person who has put blinkers of scientific empiricism on, that an absolute assertion of KCA would be problematic. Nevertheless, I think that for a person that is seeking truth, it is reasonable on the evidence to accept the argument.

I'm sorry, I don't see the problem. One, we do not understand the cause of Quantum fluctuations. And two, time can regress infinitely into the past asymptotically within a finite space-time. How are these in contradiction?

Your assertion here is not the contradiction I am referring to. The contradiction occurs when on the one hand logic is denied, by the denial of causality, and then on the other hand it is taken up again to make the assertion.
If anything in the quantum world can be thought of by the mind then principles that the mind uses must be valid in order for thought to progress.

I would say it's reasonable to have faith in a "beginning" and it is also reasonable (and more correct) to just say - we don't know at this point.

I would say that to say that "we don't know at this point" is ultimately true for all human thought and experience. That in the real world we seek a reasonable working conclusion that may be used to make an assessment of the trustworthiness of that in which we put our faith.

 

[Anguspure]

Ok, I think I've got what you're saying. So you believe that time is not an entity in and of itself but rather an illusion arrising for our perception of the 'sea of effects' progressing. That is a really interesting way of thinking about time, and I must say I like it a lot.

The way I have always thought about cosmic beginings is a little different though. I view the universe not as a completely separate created entity, but rather it being within or part of God and it existing timelessly in him and with him. A part of God's nature if you will. I don't view God as causing the universe to exist in much the same way as he didn't cause Jesus to exist. The universe is part of God but has its own unique discernible charecteristics, in much the same way the trinity is one but has 3 distinctly discernible parts.

I view the universe as uncaused in the same way I view God as uncaused. The universe begins in the sense that time and space begin but it does not begin to exist as it is timelessly existent in him at t=0.

In this way my poor olde brain doesn't have to grapple with uncaused causes and something from nothing. Take all this as my thought bubble on the issue rather than a philosophy I am deeply committed to.

Your thought bubble is interesting, and I would have to say compelling in a sense.

After all, even on the way I am thinking, one must at least acknowledge that the "energy" from which the universe is formed emanated from the Cause itself and thus must be something that has been a part of the Cause.

If we take a view that a beginning has only occurred where it has occurred in an absolute (ex nihilo) sense then I can see that it could be said that the "substance" of the universe is beginingless even as the Cause itself is beginningless.

To be honest (at the risk of hitting a strawman, and I apologise if I have the wrong end of the stick) I think the main reason I would resist this view is theological / philosophical, in that it smacks to much of Pantheism in that the distinction between Cause and Effect is made a little too fuzzy for my liking in respect of a Personal Creative Mind (which I consider is necessary in order for a timeless necessary thing to change) that is distinct from a created non-personal thing.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The contradiction occurs when on the one hand logic is denied, by the denial of causality, and then on the other hand it is taken up again to make the assertion.

Sorry I don't follow, where did I deny causality?

 

[Everybodyknows]

Your thought bubble is interesting, and I would have to say compelling in a sense.

After all, even on the way I am thinking, one must at least acknowledge that the "energy" from which the universe is formed emanated from the Cause itself and thus must be something that has been a part of the Cause.

If we take a view that a beginning has only occurred where it has occurred in an absolute (ex nihilo) sense then I can see that it could be said that the "substance" of the universe is beginingless even as the Cause itself is beginningless.

To be honest (at the risk of hitting a strawman, and I apologise if I have the wrong end of the stick) I think the main reason I would resist this view is theological / philosophical, in that it smacks to much of Pantheism in that the distinction between Cause and Effect is made a little too fuzzy for my liking in respect of a Personal Creative Mind (which I consider is necessary in order for a timeless necessary thing to change) that is distinct from a created non-personal thing.

Not a strawman at all, in fact you make a valid point. A few others I have shared with also have come back with similar issues. While I admit at face value it indeed does appear to be pantheistic I have a different way of thinking about it and in my mind its not really pantheism.

Pantheism equates god and the universe as one entity, where the universe itself is conscious and is God. But I prefer to think of the universe as a member of God and subordinate to him in every way. For example I can say my foot is part of me, it shares my DNA and some of my nature but it is subordinate to my will. It has no meaningful existence apart from me, but I could continue to exist without it. I cant say that I caused it to exist or brought it into being because then I might as well say I caused myself to exist. My foot has no consciousness on its own but is part of the collection of parts that I define as myself.

Sorry for the ramble, and thank you for taking the time to try and understand my thought bubble.

 

[anonymous person]

Not a strawman at all, in fact you make a valid point. A few others I have shared with also have come back with similar issues. While I admit at face value it indeed does appear to be pantheistic I have a different way of thinking about it and in my mind its not really pantheism.

Pantheism equates god and the universe as one entity, where the universe itself is conscious and is God. But I prefer to think of the universe as a member of God and subordinate to him in every way. For example I can say my foot is part of me, it shares my DNA and some of my nature but it is subordinate to my will. It has no meaningful existence apart from me, but I could continue to exist without it. I cant say that I caused it to exist or brought it into being because then I might as well say I caused myself to exist. My foot has no consciousness on its own but is part of the collection of parts that I define as myself.

Sorry for the ramble, and thank you for taking the time to try and understand my thought bubble.

This issue is one of relation i.e. how should we view God's relationship to the universe. I think here, our control should be holy scripture. If we look at what the scriptures say about creation, we can conclude certain things and I think we should go no further than what God has decided to reveal to us i.e. what we can conclude from scripture and I think we can actually conclude quite a bit!

I think an understanding of the concept of "Logos" will help us.

 

[anonymous person]

In addition, it would be cool to go through the transcripts of Dr. Craig's Defenders series on the doctrine of creation. The first part is linked below.

Transcript: Doctrine of Creation (part 01) | Reasonable Faith

 

[Anguspure]

Sorry I don't follow, where did I deny causality?

Your post (#107) appeared to argue the negation of cause in respect of the universe and against the general metaphysical principle of causality:

Problem one: Quantum mechanics makes "causes" difficult to find and there is no certainty they even exist......
Without a beginning the universe requires no cause.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Your post (#107) appeared to argue the negation of cause in respect of the universe and against the general metaphysical principle of causality:

If the only physical thing that exists is the universe, and the universe expanded from an unknown source beyond classical laws, then we can say nothing about causes. That is my point, we don't know.

Can you explain it the phrase "metaphysical principle of causality", what is this principle and how does it exist outside of space-time?

 

[Everybodyknows]

Can you explain it the phrase "metaphysical principle of causality", what is this principle and how does it exist outside of space-time?

@Anguspure, same question from me. I've been poking around but I can't find anything specifically related to this.
I don't want to reject an argument simply for the fact that I don't understand it.

 

[Anguspure]

If the only physical thing that exists is the universe, and the universe expanded from an unknown source beyond classical laws, then we can say nothing about causes. That is my point, we don't know.

Can you explain it the phrase "metaphysical principle of causality", what is this principle and how does it exist outside of space-time?

@Everybodyknows

It is an old argument, and as one author noted most of the endless arguments about causality come down to a lack of definition as to what is meant.

In essence what I mean by the "metaphysical principle of causality" is that causality is a principle independent of the physical world. It is a basic metaphysical concept.

Frank Turek has noted in his book Stealing from God:

Lets look at that argument in a syllogism:

1. The law of causality only applies to physical things in space and time.
2. The creation of the universe did not occur in space-time (it was the creation of space-time).
3. Therefore the law of causality does not apply to the creation of our universe.

This argument does not work because the first premise is false. In order to see why, lets put our inspector hat back on.
Notice that there is no physical relationship between the premises (1. and 2.) and the conclusion (3.) of the argument above (or any argument). Also notice that the premises are not objects in space-time. Yet there is a causal relationship between the premises and the conclusion. In other words true premises result in valid conclusions.
If the above argument were sound then no argument could be sound. How so? If the laws of causality only apply to physical things, then no argument would work because premises and arguments are not physical things. For any argument to work - including arguments against God - the law of causality must apply to the immaterial realm because the components of arguments are immaterial.

In other words, logic itself wouldn't work if the first premise were true! But since logic works, the law of causality applies metaphysically, not just physically. In fact to deny causality beyond space and time would be to deny logic, which would be self-defeating and would negate our ability to argue anything.

Causality - Wikipedia
"The nature of cause and effect is a concern of the subject known as metaphysics....A general metaphysical question about cause and effect is what kind of entity can be a cause, and what kind of entity can be an effect."

https://www.amazon.com/Kant-Metaphy...p/B01DM280PY/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Kant and Hume on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[anonymous person]

@Everybodyknows

It is an old argument, and as one author noted most of the endless arguments about causality come down to a lack of definition as to what is meant.

In essence what I mean by the "metaphysical principle of causality" is that causality is a principle independent of the physical world. It is a basic metaphysical concept.

Frank Turek has noted in his book Stealing from God:





Causality - Wikipedia
"The nature of cause and effect is a concern of the subject known as metaphysics....A general metaphysical question about cause and effect is what kind of entity can be a cause, and what kind of entity can be an effect."

https://www.amazon.com/Kant-Metaphy...p/B01DM280PY/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Kant and Hume on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And Francisco Suarez's, “On Creation, Conservation, and Concurrence” in Metaphysical Disputations 20-22

 

[Everybodyknows]

@Everybodyknows

It is an old argument, and as one author noted most of the endless arguments about causality come down to a lack of definition as to what is meant.

In essence what I mean by the "metaphysical principle of causality" is that causality is a principle independent of the physical world. It is a basic metaphysical concept.

Frank Turek has noted in his book Stealing from God:





Causality - Wikipedia
"The nature of cause and effect is a concern of the subject known as metaphysics....A general metaphysical question about cause and effect is what kind of entity can be a cause, and what kind of entity can be an effect."

https://www.amazon.com/Kant-Metaphy...p/B01DM280PY/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Kant and Hume on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

@anonymous person

Thanks guys.

A lot to chew on there. Working my way through it

 

[anonymous person]

@anonymous person

Thanks guys.

A lot to chew on there. Working my way through it

Pre-Socratic Origins of the Principle that There are No Origins from Nothing on JSTOR

A good place to start is with Parmenides of Elea. He was pre-socratic if I am not mistaken.

 

[Everybodyknows]

In addition, it would be cool to go through the transcripts of Dr. Craig's Defenders series on the doctrine of creation. The first part is linked below.

Transcript: Doctrine of Creation (part 01) | Reasonable Faith

I've read thought a few of these so far. Some interesting insights there.

However one thing that I'm having trouble grasping is W L Craig seems to favour 'creatio ex nihilo', creation out of nothing. Now we have debated this here and agreed that something from nothing is impossible, so how do we explain God creating something out of nothing? I suppose we could say God could do that if he wanted to since he isn't bound by any laws, but that doesn't sit too well with me in light of what we have been discussing in this thread so far. The thought bubble I presented earlier on came out of my trying to avoid this creatio ex nihilo idea.

 

[anonymous person]

I've read thought a few of these so far. Some interesting insights there.

However one thing that I'm having trouble grasping is W L Craig seems to favour 'creatio ex nihilo', creation out of nothing. Now we have debated this here and agreed that something from nothing is impossible, so how do we explain God creating something out of nothing? I suppose we could say God could do that if he wanted to since he isn't bound by any laws, but that doesn't sit too well with me in light of what we have been discussing in this thread so far. The thought bubble I presented earlier on came out of my trying to avoid this creatio ex nihilo idea.

The doctrine contends that there was no physical material existing co-eternally right along with God with which He began interacting with to create the universe, hence the nihilo. But that God (who is something) created the universe by speaking it into existence, from nothing.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The doctrine contends that there was no physical material existing co-eternally right along with God with which He began interacting with to create the universe, hence the nihilo. But that God (who is something) created the universe by speaking it into existence, from nothing.

I still don't see why we are giving an exemption from ex nihilo nihil. Can something cause another thing to come into existence from nothing? To me this makes as little sense as something spontaneously popping into existence from nothing, worse than magic. I was previously toying with the idea that maybe the laws of logic don't apply to God's realm or the beginning of the universe but you corrected me on that.

 

[anonymous person]

I still don't see why we are giving an exemption from ex nihilo nihil. Can something cause another thing to come into existence from nothing? To me this makes as little sense as something spontaneously popping into existence from nothing, worse than magic. I was previously toying with the idea that maybe the laws of logic don't apply to God's realm or the beginning of the universe but you corrected me on that.

The ex nihilo nihil fit principle simply indicates that being cannot come from non-being so that should something arise, it arises from something else.

There must come a point in our investigation where we admit that what lies beyond the horizon of our comprehension is too awesome and mysterious for us to grasp. There must be that element of wonder when we think of such things. There must be that place where we come to and say, "this is just too grand for me to understand, too wonderful and awe inspiring to be reduced into the common currency of human language."

It is our tendency as adults to want to take the wonder and mystery out of things but God will only allow us to go so far in doing that. I rejoice that I cannot wrap my mind around God speaking all of physical reality into existence. It makes sense to me that I cannot. It makes sense to me that His ways are higher than ours and that His thoughts are higher than ours.