Kalaam Cosmological Argument

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
What is true however is that we don't know how the universe came into existence, and we don't know what, or if anything exists outside of it.

I just want to focus on this for a moment.

You say:

(1) We don't know how the universe came into existence.

This implies:

(a) The universe came into existence.
(b) There is an explanation for the universe although we don't know it.
(c) Therefore something explains the universe that is not the universe itself.
You say:

(2) We don't know what, if anything, exists outside of it.

But you've already implied that something exists outside of the universe above in implication (1c).

Unless you want to say that the universe caused itself to begin to exist or that the universe never began to exist but has existed eternally, then you must conclude that something separate from the universe is the explanation for the universe.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I still read philosophy whenever I can, although professionally that's not what I do. But it's hard to give up on philosophy... the unexamined life not being worth living and all.

...oh, philosophy isn't what I do professionally either, but it's hard to get away from the daily act of examining one's own life. How true this is!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Archaeopteryx
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
A general comment about the KCA: It's an interesting argument because most of its modern-day proponents try to use findings from cosmology to support its key premises, particularly the second one. Its appeal thus seems to lie in its apparent scientific credentials. That's what makes it interesting and sets it apart from other cosmological arguments, which don't seem to lean so heavily on the findings of Big Bang cosmology specifically. That said, it's probably not the best cosmological argument out there, despite its simplicity and apparent connection to the latest science.

I do think it coheres well will scientific consensus. But I think that the philosophical objections to an eternal universe are more compelling than the scientific objections, personally. What do you believe is the best cosmological argument if not this one?
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do think it coheres well will scientific consensus. But I think that the philosophical objections to an eternal universe are more compelling than the scientific objections, personally. What do you believe is the best cosmological argument if not this one?
In my view, arguments that invoke some version of PSR are better, though in some respects they encounter similar issues.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
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"?

No. An eternally existing universe never began to exist in my book. But I believe there are serious philosophical absurdities entailed in the idea of an eternal universe - let alone scientific evidence that makes an eternal universe implausible.

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.

I appreciate the introduction of the category ex materia from @Archaeopteryx. If the universe began to exist then it would be a beginning ex nihilo and not ex materia. These are, admittedly, categorically different kinds of beginnings. But I believe that since they are analogically related, there is no logical fallacy in the argument.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I appreciate the introduction of the category ex materia from @Archaeopteryx. If the universe began to exist then it would be a beginning ex nihilo and not ex materia. These are, admittedly, categorically different kinds of beginnings. But I believe that since they are analogically related, there is no logical fallacy in the argument.
If they are categorically different, and if the first premise refers to one and the second to something else, then the argument likely suffers from an equivocation fallacy.
The principle of sufficient reason.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No. An eternally existing universe never began to exist in my book.
Depending on what you mean by "begin to exist", a universe with a "beginning" need not "begin to exist" either. Remember that "beginning" in cosmology means a first moment in time, not a beginning from nothing. And if time had a first moment then it seems plausible to say that the universe has existed for all time; there was no time where it did not exist.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
If they are categorically different, and if the first premise refers to one and the second to something else, then the argument likely suffers from an equivocation fallacy.

Not if they are analogically related, which they are. Premise (1) is true for both things that begin to exist ex materia and things that begin to exist ex nihilo. Because it is equally true for both, their categorical difference is not relevant to this argument.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Depending on what you mean by "begin to exist", a universe with a "beginning" need not "begin to exist" either. Remember that "beginning" in cosmology means a first moment in time, not a beginning from nothing. And if time had a first moment then it seems plausible to say that the universe has existed for all time; there was no time where it did not exist.

I think this simply relocates the problem to time. Since time began to exist it also must have a cause.
 
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

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I just want to focus on this for a moment.

You say:

(1) We don't know how the universe came into existence.

This implies:

(a) The universe came into existence.
(b) There is an explanation for the universe although we don't know it.
(c) Therefore something explains the universe that is not the universe itself.
You say:

(2) We don't know what, if anything, exists outside of it.

But you've already implied that something exists outside of the universe above in implication (1c).

Unless you want to say that the universe caused itself to begin to exist or that the universe never began to exist but has existed eternally, then you must conclude that something separate from the universe is the explanation for the universe.


To clarify, I'll address your points as you wrote them:

1a) Correct
1b) Probably, yes.
1c) That's an unknown (I'll address this more later, as the next part is based around this point)

2) Actually, you wrote "something explains the universe that is not the universe itself". I wrote "we don't know what, if anything, exists outside of it".

Again, we have no idea what, or if anything exists outside of the universe, we don't know the conditions that were present at the spark of the big bang, and we don't know under what conditions that matter and energy can be created.

Perhaps the universe as we know it, and the matter and energy that make it up is all there is, and the big bang was merely a transition from a previous form of our own universe. Again, we have no idea.

It may be possible that something exists outside of the universe as we know it, but we don't know that for sure. It would be unjustified to start asserting what does or doesn't exist outside of the universe, as we really have no clue.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Not if they are analogically related, which they are. Premise (1) is true for both things that begin to exist ex materia and things that begin to exist ex nihilo. Because it is equally true for both, their categorical difference is not relevant to this argument.
It does seem to be relevant since the evidence cited in supported of premise 1 are all examples of creation ex materia. If the second premise then uses those same terms in a different sense, then the argument equivocates, which poses a rather substantial problem. Put another way, if your evidence for the first premise can only support a certain interpretation, and your second premise relies on an entirely different interpretation, then the argument suffers from an equivocation fallacy.
I think this simply relocates the problem to time. Since time began to exist it also must have a cause.
I'm not sure that that makes sense though, since it would seem to imply something "before" time. Since before is a temporal concept, that doesn't seem intelligible. More importantly though, it seems to put a question mark on your usage of "beginning". In this scenario, we are talking about a first moment of time, meaning that we plausibly could say that the universe has indeed always existed; it's existed for all time (i.e., there never was a time where the universe has not existed).
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Which part? I don't think there's anything that's been stated explicitly in this thread that gives us reason to pick God over a quantum vacuum as the more probable cause of the universe. More work would also need to be done to demonstrate the the universe/multiverse itself is not eternal.

I don't think the idea that God's existence is more plausible than his non-existence is really powerful these days. God's existence is a psychological impossibility for a lot of people, and you need much more than a claim of plausibility to get around that.

What is 'God' to you as you think of the word to mean?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Also, I think this Christian understanding about God is wrong. Christians believed that God became a human living in time, and that is only the beginning of the absurdity of this idea that God is timeless.

Can God truly communicate with a person if He is timeless? What kind of relationship is that? You can have a better relationship with a pet rock.

That an already-existing God would be willing to embody His unending (immortal) spirit into a mortal body for some time? Why not? And also, the question arises: why wouldn't He want to relate to other, younger, but also eternal spirits (even which He generated)? Why not? Can't think of a reason why not. If one thinks to put limits on Him, why this one (or that one, etc.)? If there is some idea behind it, we could examine such. I'm older than a 1 year old (by far), yet appreciate a 1 yr old more now than when I was 25 (just what happened), and even moreso when he/she becomes 2, etc. The infant is a being,
and that, already, is...transcendent.

Right? An existing being relating to an existing being makes sense in my experience.

Perhaps it's mystery appreciating a like mystery. The mystery of beingness.

Get what I'm saying?

My observation -- as people age they seem to gain an appreciation for the very young. Just pointing out that actuality.
 
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

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Force" was probably the wrong word to use, since I'm thinking in immaterial terms and force is a distinctively material concept. There are approaches close to theism, your sort of sleeping, dreaming God who unintentionally creates whole realities. The line is blurred here between seeing God as a who and as a what, personal and impersonal. That's more the sort of thing I have in mind. Even if you have an immaterial, conscious First Cause, you can't jump immediately to will and intellect.

? It would seem arbitrary to jump to any assertion, yes? Not only 'A', but additionally the other proposition: 'not-A', both are equally arbitrary, agree?

But we have more information than only existence alone. According to the communication we have, He made us as some kind of essense of Himself. The simple analogy, not to be ignored: 'in His image', suggesting really that we are not only metaphorically children, but in some essential sense (we don't yet have the ability to pin down we may guess) alike. In a word children, if infants. An infant has an essence that connects with the parents of course. Using the communicate analogy, we can consider that a parent is for quite a while vastly older then his/her offspring, yet they have a naturally increasing ability to connect and matter to each other. It's only a (much) longer timescale than only a mere 100 years, is my thought.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but immediately identifying it with God is an invalid move. The atheist would claim (rightly, I think) that we only do so because we are socially conditioned to favor this solution, but that it isn't justified by the argument itself.
I've sort of touched on this just above, but the information we are given is that we are in some sense like infants/children (not trying to specify much about that, and I don't think of it as only merely physical, or rather, not merely physical in terms the the physical that we understand to date that is).
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Not if they are analogically related, which they are. Premise (1) is true for both things that begin to exist ex materia and things that begin to exist ex nihilo. Because it is equally true for both, their categorical difference is not relevant to this argument.

How do you know? When has anybody ever witnessed ex nihilo, or observed its cause?

Further, what is your justification for assuming that the beginning of the universe was ex nihilo in premise 2?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
That an already-existing God would be willing to embody His unending (immortal) spirit into a mortal body for some time? Why not? And also, the question arises: why wouldn't He want to relate to other, younger, but also eternal spirits (even which He generated)? Why not? Can't think of a reason why not. If one thinks to put limits on Him, why this one (or that one, etc.)? If there is some idea behind it, we could examine such. I'm older than a 1 year old (by far), yet appreciate a 1 yr old more now than when I was 25 (just what happened), and even moreso when he/she becomes 2, etc. The infant is a being,
and that, already, is...transcendent.

Right? An existing being relating to an existing being makes sense in my experience.

Perhaps it's mystery appreciating a like mystery. The mystery of beingness.

Get what I'm saying?

My observation -- as people age they seem to gain an appreciation for the very young. Just pointing out that actuality.
If a being is outside time then it seems to me that it would be static - like a pet rock. Maybe this matches the experience of many seekers who finally give up. Praying might be like talking to your pet rock. A good old reliable rock - the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Is that what we seek in God? Not me.

For God to be a living being he must exist in some sort of time IMO.

If I pray to God and he laughs at me is he always laughing at me - even before I prayed and even after I die? Is that a relationship? ... IDK
 
Last edited:
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

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What is 'God' to you as you think of the word to mean?

The ground of reality that exists necessarily of its own nature. Intellect, will, and some degree of separation from created reality are required as well, or we're dealing with one of the alternatives to theism. (I would probably add in some additional scholastic ideas, but this isn't strictly necessary.)

? It would seem arbitrary to jump to any assertion, yes? Not only 'A', but additionally the other proposition: 'not-A', both are equally arbitrary, agree?

No, I don't think they're equally arbitrary. If one is going to add an additional attribute to the concept of Necessary Existence, there should be a reason. Failing to add that additional attribute doesn't have to mean denying it--it could simply mean a position of agnosticism.

Now, I do think that revelation is an acceptable basis upon which to make statements about God, as long as that revelation is coherent and consistent with reality, but you're not going to impress anyone who doesn't already accept said revelation by doing so.

I've sort of touched on this just above, but the information we are given is that we are in some sense like infants/children (not trying to specify much about that, and I don't think of it as only merely physical, or rather, not merely physical in terms the the physical that we understand to date that is).

I am a convinced theist. My concern is not whether God exists, but whether this particular argument offers us anything useful.

My primary frustration here is the failure to define God and explicitly argue from a cause of the universe to anything resembling that definition. It's a formal fallacy, and the sort of thing that drives non-theists nuts, so the missing steps ought to be filled in, or the argument will say nothing even if it succeeds.
 
Upvote 0