Kalaam Cosmological Argument

[Tree of Life]

I don't think that we have any way of knowing that. However, for the sake of the discussion, I am willing to cede that premise.

Well if, as you've said, (1) time began to exist and (2) all things that begin to exist (including time) have a cause, then (3) time has a cause. This cause cannot be time or spacetime itself because we've already conceded in (1) that time began to exist. Do you see how this leads us to the conclusion that something outside of space and time caused space and time to exist?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It attempts no such thing. The only attributes the argument speaks to are "uncaused" and "eternal." The rest are just getting a free lunch here.

You are correct that is does not say it at face value. They are all implied. Because the universe cannot have created itself, the cause must be apart from the universe. Because matter can neither be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Mass), the cause must be "immaterial". Because all space and time exists within our universe, the cause must be "spaceless" and "timeless". Because the cause is above or outside our natural universe, the cause must be "supernatural". In order to have created a universe to include all the power and energy within it, the cause must be unimaginably powerful. The cause must be personal, meaning that it must have consciousness with the ability to choose, because while in a state of an eternally stable nothingness, it chose to create the universe. It has to be eternal and without cause, otherwise something more powerful must have caused this "cause" to exist. Thus, a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, supernatural, uncaused, personal "cause", must exist if the universe began and has a cause.

 

[Tree of Life]

Either you're using the phrase "began to exist" the same way in all of your premises and applying it the same way to all the things that "began to exist", or your argument is not valid. If you mean something different by "began to exist" in premise 1 than what you mean by "began to exist" in premise 2, then using the same exact phrase would be dishonest.

You're using the exact same phrase because you mean the exact same thing and you're applying it the exact same way to all things, though, right?

So let's say I, the person, began to exist once all of my molecules gathered together and electricity started flowing in my brain. We can say, "Look! There was a cause for those molecules rearranging, therefore there is a cause for molecules rearranging even if we don't know what that cause is in some cases."

Then we consider the universe. If it's a rearranging of matter and energy, or if it's a rearranging of something more fundamental into the things we call matter and energy, then we can say, "Look! There was a cause for that rearrangement even if we don't know what that cause is in this case." However, if you mean "began to exist" as in "popped into existence where there was previously nothing" no one has ever seen that happen so there is no reason to apply causation that we witness in rearrangements to "poppings".

So if you're talking about things rearranging in premise 1, and then the universe popping into existence in premise 2, your argument is no longer valid because "began to exist" means two different things in the same argument. It should look more like this:

1) Everything that moves has a cause.
2) The universe popped into existence.
3) The universe has a cause.

That isn't valid.

Personally, I just think matter and energy and probably even spacetime is just some other more fundamental thing rearranged to look like the stuff we find ourselves in. So I would be fine if "began to exist" in your argument always meant "rearranged", but I don't think you mean it that way in premise 2.

Ok I see your point. But I believe at the end of the day you are denying premise 2. You would be suggesting that whatever the universe is (matter, energy, physical laws, etc) never began to exist but has existed eternally. Is that fair?

 

[46AND2]

Well if, as you've said, (1) time began to exist and (2) all things that begin to exist (including time) have a cause, then (3) time has a cause. This cause cannot be time or spacetime itself because we've already conceded in (1) that time began to exist. Do you see how this leads us to the conclusion that something outside of space and time caused space and time to exist?

There was likely some cause for the singularity to expand and create space and time. Yes. So what? How do you go away from natural causes as we have only ever observed, to a supernatural cause?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Word salad. When you have no idea what "the eternal" is, or if it even exists, you can describe it any way you like. Ultimately, though, it doesn't mean anything.

Nothing can be measured without a point of reference or a standard at which to measure it. If something is eternal, there is no point of reference to measure the duration of its existence. Therefore, duration aka "time" is meaningless. It would be like as if I had a rope that was infinite in length. If you were to grab the rope, what part of the rope did you grab? Did you grab it closer to the beginning or the end? Does the rope have an end at all? Now lets just say that this rope was a time line. Without a point of reference, given an eternal and infinite timeline, at what point of time line did you grab?

 

[Tree of Life]

There was likely some cause for the singularity to expand and create space and time. Yes. So what? How do you go away from natural causes as we have only ever observed, to a supernatural cause?

I think that the theoretical singularity counts as part of the universe. It's just the universe in a different form. If I'm not mistaken, physicists would say that all the matter and energy that exists in our universe existed in the theoretical singularity.

So did the singularity begin to exist?

 

[46AND2]

Nothing can be measured without a point of reference or a standard at which to measure it. If something is eternal, there is no point of reference to measure the duration of its existence. Therefore, duration aka "time" is meaningless. It would be like as if I had a rope that was infinite in length. If you were to grab the rope, what part of the rope did you grab? Did you grab it closer to the beginning or the end? Does the rope have an end at all? Now lets just say that this rope was a time line. Without a point of reference, given an eternal and infinite timeline, at what point of time line did you grab?

As I have said, without time, eternity is meaningless. It is a never ending passage of time. If there is an end of the rope (either beginning or end of time) then time can only be described within the limits of that length of rope. Your analogy still insists on extending time past the end of the rope.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While this argument is not universally persuasive, I do believe that it is an effective argument for God's existence. This is to say that the premises and conclusions are more plausible than their negations. Let's take a look at this argument in this thread and hash it out. Here is a simple form of the argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

The argument looks sound and valid to me. Conclusion (3) would imply that God is the cause of the universe. Perhaps you would deny or challenge one or more of the premises. Perhaps you would challenge the validity of the argument. Perhaps you would accept the argument but deny that God is the cause of the universe.

Discuss.

I hate to say it, but even though this argument is sensible, it is token-esque and remains open to additional interpretations. For this reason, I think that it, like peanut butter in a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, can only serve as but one element of support for Theistic belief. That is, in and of itself, all by itself, it fails to give most rational people any concern about whether or not there is a God watching over them, let alone the God of the Bible.

And that's just my quick, 2-penny contribution. It's not that I don't think the argument is cogent, it's that I just don't think it carries much rational weight on its own.

 

[46AND2]

I think that the theoretical singularity counts as part of the universe. It's just the universe in a different form. If I'm not mistaken, physicists would say that all the matter and energy that exists in our universe existed in the theoretical singularity.

So did the singularity begin to exist?

I don't know. I don't know that your question even makes any sense, since "begin to exist" indicates a point in time, which does not exist within the singularity.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I don't know. I don't know that your question even makes any sense, since "begin to exist" indicates a point in time, which does not exist within the singularity.

@Tree of Life , I called it in post 29. Trust me when I say that this is the best answer you are ever going to get. At least it only took you one day to get this response. I think my thread got somewhere around 230 posts before it got to this point.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok I see your point. But I believe at the end of the day you are denying premise 2. You would be suggesting that whatever the universe is (matter, energy, physical laws, etc) never began to exist but has existed eternally. Is that fair?

It's fair because that's basically what I suspect, but I'm not claiming I can prove it or anything of the sort. Do you think your argument still works if that's what it means for the universe to "begin to exist"?

I don't claim to know, though, so I can go either way with it. If the universe did pop into existence where there was previously nothing at all, then you can't compare that to the only "beginning to exist" things we've ever seen.

 

[46AND2]

@Tree of Life , I called it in post 29. Trust me when I say that this is the best answer you are ever going to get. At least it only took you one day to get this response. I think my thread got somewhere around 230 posts before it got to this point.

I'd rather say that I don't know than speculate, inventing things like "god's time" that we can't comprehend and magical creatio ex nihilo.

I don't blame you for wanting to have an answer, or guessing what might be...but don't pretend that your inventions are logically sound arguments.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'd rather say that I don't know than speculate, inventing things like "god's time" that we can't comprehend and magical creatio ex nihilo.

I don't blame you for wanting to have an answer, or guessing what might be...but don't pretend that your inventions are logically sound arguments.

The whole point of the argument is not to prove or disprove God. Rather to show that God's existence is logically and scientifically possible. There is absolutely no speculating about it. It is simply a matter of if this is true then logically that must be true as well. As a result of this argument, anyone who makes the claim that there is no God makes a claim based on faith. You speak of magical "creatio ex nihilo", but the best thing that atheist can suggest is that nothing created everything for absolutely no reason. That idea is more absurd than magic. Because at least with magic you have a magician waving a wand to make a rabbit appear out of nowhere. Atheists seem to suggest that a rabbit just appeared from nothing, by nothing, for absolutely no reason.

 

[Silmarien]

There seem to be two big issues here: 1) the amateur/expert distinction, and 2) the difficulty with identifying a causal philosophical conclusion with God. For the first, the shortened version of the Kalam without any explanation is a layman's argument, and its value is mostly found by laymen. Your critique may be too subtle for that demographic, and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense--just that the layman will probably ignore your "quantum field" suggestion.

I don't really see why the distinction between amateur/expert distinction would be relevant to the question of whether the argument succeeds. There is a huge gaping hole in the logic here, and regardless of whether or not laymen see value in it, non-theists will go for the jugular. The quantum vacuum objection is actually a pretty standard response amongst that population, so I don't consider it overly subtle.

For the second, what causal argument could ever live up to your criterion? The conclusions of such arguments never fully encapsulate what we believe God to be. As Aquinas concludes his arguments, "And this everyone understands to be God."

To be honest, I'm not convinced any causal argument works outside of a broadly Aristotelian frame. Without a more robust notion of causality, we're just talking about efficient causes, and there's no reason to really conceptualize those in anything but materialistic terms. Hence the quantum vacuum getting to do all the work.

You are correct that is does not say it at face value. They are all implied. Because the universe cannot have created itself, the cause must be apart from the universe. Because matter can neither be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Mass), the cause must be "immaterial". Because all space and time exists within our universe, the cause must be "spaceless" and "timeless". Because the cause is above or outside our natural universe, the cause must be "supernatural". In order to have created a universe to include all the power and energy within it, the cause must be unimaginably powerful. The cause must be personal, meaning that it must have consciousness with the ability to choose, because while in a state of an eternally stable nothingness, it chose to create the universe. It has to be eternal and without cause, otherwise something more powerful must have caused this "cause" to exist. Thus, a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, supernatural, uncaused, personal "cause", must exist if the universe began and has a cause.

You cannot imply the entirety of your argument--the important parts have to be explicitly stated, and preferably in more than one sentence. I don't think any of these claims automatically follow, though. One popular alternative model is an eternal cyclical universe which periodically expands and contracts. Under this framework, the universe does in a sense eternally recreate itself. We do not know that space and time cannot exist in other universes as well, we do not know that ours did not originate in a different universe as part of a multiverse. Even allowing for an immaterial cause, we do not know that it consciously chose to create. The heart of reality could be an eternally creative force that just automatically churns out universes as part of its nature. (I think this last one is one of the stronger alternatives to theism, though it's admittedly a close cousin.)

 

[46AND2]

The whole point of the argument is not to prove or disprove God. Rather to show that God's existence is logically and scientifically possible. There is absolutely no speculating about it. It is simply a matter of if this is true then logically that must be true as well. As a result of this argument, anyone who makes the claim that there is no God makes a claim based on faith.

1. I don't make the claim that there is no god.
2. The argument doesn't do anything to improve or impede the possibility of god. Basically, it boils down to IF there is a beginning of the universe (which is not established) we don't fully understand its nature. Therefore, maybe god. Many years ago, the same could be said of lightning.
3. Of course it is speculation. In your argument, god is assumed, not concluded. Even if both premises are true, and hence the conclusion, you still need to establish why a supernatural explanation is justified when all we have ever observed are natural explanations.

 

[Moral Orel]

The heart of reality could be an eternally creative force that just automatically churns out universes as part of its nature. (I think this last one is one of the stronger alternatives to theism, though it's admittedly a close cousin.)

That would be my best guess. I don't know how it's close to theism though. The distinction of a willed choice or a mindless force seems to be miles apart to me.

 

[Dirk1540]

I agree. The argument doesn't actually prove that there is a God. Rather, it attempts to prove that a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, supernatural, immensely powerful, personal, uncaused and eternal "cause" must exist in order for the universe to come into existence. Theists call this "cause" "God". The logic does not necessarily prove God's existence, rather, it places the option of "God" as a logical possibility to be considered. Otherwise, how would you be able to claim deism is false other than by pure "faith" that it is false?

What are some other things that you can call the cause?

I think the reverse it true. Time is meaningless to the eternal. Hence, another reason why the eternal and uncaused "cause" would therefore be "timeless". Timeless, as in, beyond our concept of time. Not without time but the time is meaningless nonetheless. In your case, you could say that if the universe was eternal, time outside our universe would be meaningless.

But can’t you point to the eternal on September 4th in 1980, and then point to the eternal tonight, and distinguish between the two? So wouldn’t time then not be meaningless for the eternal?

 

[cloudyday2]

Interesting. So you deny the principle of causality?

I suppose so. The language of science is math. You look at phenomena and try to fit them statistically to an equation, and then you test that equation in new domains to see if it applies more generally (not a formal definition of course but that is how it seems to me).

Now there is a difference between fitting data points to an equation where one parameter is time and claiming that events in the past cause events in the future. Take the classical physics understanding of planetary orbits. If we know the current state then we can guess both the future AND the past state.

Entropy defines an arrow of time though. Forward is not the same as backwards. So it's confusing. I wish I had gone further in my physics education so I could think about these issues more effectively. My brain is kind of old and soggy now, but my curiosity is still there. I wish I understood these things.

 

[cloudyday2]

Part of God's "omnipresence" means that He is in all times as well as space. God would be neither bound by space nor time. So yes, in essence "time" existed prior to the creation of the universe. It is just not any type of time that we can fathom or understand...because we are not God.

Yeah, that is how I would imagine it too. It seems that time is essential to living. God needs to exist in some sort of time, but maybe that time is orthogonal to the time in our universe. An analogy would be comparing time in real life to time inside a computer simulation.

 

[Tree of Life]

As I have said, without time, eternity is meaningless. It is a never ending passage of time. If there is an end of the rope (either beginning or end of time) then time can only be described within the limits of that length of rope. Your analogy still insists on extending time past the end of the rope.

I think this is a misunderstanding of eternity. It is not a never ending passage of time. Eternity is timeless.