Kalaam Cosmological Argument

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
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.

Non-theists and combative atheists are very different populations, and the logic isn't gaping if the unspecified premises are in place. Even if they come from social conditioning, it requires more to claim that the social conditioning is erroneous.

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.

Did Aristotle himself conclude with a prime mover having intellect and will? It doesn't seem that he did. The same basic problem applies there.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
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.


Premise 1 is not supported by any evidence.

It sounds great on its face, however it's fundamentally flawed as we've never actually witnessed anything begin to exist.

Don't get me wrong, we see all kinds of new stuff happen. Trees make seeds which grow into other trees, humans make babies, and the car plant down the road builds new cars, etc....

However everything that "begins to exist" in that way is a reorganization of previously existing matter and energy. The particles that make up that tree, your body, or the new car rolling off the assembly line has existed since at least the beginning of the universe.

We have never seen the creation of new matter or energy, we don't know how it could be created, we don't know if new matter or energy can be created, and we certainly don't know a cause, or if there is a cause at all.

Conflating everyday creation of new stuff with the creation of new matter and energy is a dishonest attempt to slip one past someone that isn't familiar with these arguments. (I'm not saying you're doing this, but a guy like William Lane Craig is certainly familiar with the problems with the Kalam argument).

Since premise 1 is unsupported, then premises 2 and 3 don't follow. Unless you can demonstrate premise 1, the argument falls apart.

So, how do we know what, or if something caused the creation of matter and energy?
 
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
Premise 1 is not supported by any evidence.

It sounds great on its face, however it's fundamentally flawed as we've never actually witnessed anything begin to exist.

Don't get me wrong, we see all kinds of new stuff happen. Trees make seeds which grow into other trees, humans make babies, and the car plant down the road builds new cars, etc....

However everything that "begins to exist" in that way is a reorganization of previously existing matter and energy. The particles that make up that tree, your body, or the new car rolling off the assembly line has existed since at least the beginning of the universe.

We have never seen the creation of new matter or energy, we don't know how it could be created, we don't know if new matter or energy can be created, and we certainly don't know a cause, or if there is a cause at all.

Conflating everyday creation of new stuff with the creation of new matter and energy is a dishonest attempt to slip one past someone that isn't familiar with these arguments. (I'm not saying you're doing this, but a guy like William Lane Craig is certainly familiar with the problems with the Kalam argument).

Since premise 1 is unsupported, then premises 2 and 3 don't follow. Unless you can demonstrate premise 1, the argument falls apart.

So, how do we know what, or if something caused the creation of matter and energy?

Premise 1 is something of a common sense premise. If pressed then we must admit that the things that we see "begin to exist" are indeed comprised of parts that pre-existed the things. A person does not begin to exist ex nihilo. But a person does indeed begin to exist in any sense of the term. There was a point in time when your person did not exist. And now, thank God, it does!

I really think that you're denying premise 2. You would want to deny that matter and energy ever began to exist. Is this right?
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Premise 1 is something of a common sense premise. If pressed then we must admit that the things that we see "begin to exist" are indeed comprised of parts that pre-existed the things. A person does not begin to exist ex nihilo. But a person does indeed begin to exist in any sense of the term. There was a point in time when your person did not exist. And now, thank God, it does!

I really think that you're denying premise 2. You would want to deny that matter and energy ever began to exist. Is this right?

I think you missed the point I was raising.

My point was that things coming into existence in everyday life, like people, or things that we build, etc is not the same as matter and energy coming into existence. The Kalam relies on conflating these two very different things.

As I pointed out, premise one sounds good on its face, or as you put it "a common sense premise", however that relies on people missing the conflation that I pointed out above.

When talking about the creation of the universe, the creation of matter and energy is all that matters. We have never witnessed that happen ever, we don't know how, or if it was caused by anything.

The fact we can cause things like a shed to be built in the backyard is entirely irrelevant to the creation of matter and energy in and of itself. They are not remotely equal, or even related propositions.
 
Upvote 0

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
Non-theists and combative atheists are very different populations, and the logic isn't gaping if the unspecified premises are in place. Even if they come from social conditioning, it requires more to claim that the social conditioning is erroneous.

Except that I'm quite explicitly critiquing an argument where the unspecified premises are not in place. That makes the argument absolutely erroneous--we have a very clear formal fallacy if entire premises and steps are missing. One doesn't need to be a combative atheist to expect an argument to actually follow through from start to finish without pulling a bait and switch at the very end. I'm not claiming that the social conditioning is erroneous--I don't think it is, but if the argument doesn't even bother to defend it, then nothing more is required to declare the argument itself erroneous.

I used to think that this particular formulation of the Kalam was an atheistic caricature, but it actually seems to be what professional apologists like Craig present to the public. If the "official" layman version commits genuine logical fallacies, that is a problem.

Did Aristotle himself conclude with a prime mover having intellect and will? It doesn't seem that he did. The same basic problem applies there.

But I wasn't talking about intellect and will. I was referring to immateriality, and the tendency that materialists have to conceive of the First Cause as an efficient cause. That problem doesn't apply to Aristotelianism.

Honestly, I think the only value of the Kalam is in elucidating how we think of God and time, temporality and eternity. I don't think it works very well as a causal argument since it doesn't really examine causality in the way you'd need to get to any divine attribute at all, aside from uncaused.
 
Last edited:
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
I think you missed the point I was raising.

My point was that things coming into existence in everyday life, like people, or things that we build, etc is not the same as matter and energy coming into existence. The Kalam relies on conflating these two very different things.

As I pointed out, premise one sounds good on its face, or as you put it "a common sense premise", however that relies on people missing the conflation that I pointed out above.

When talking about the creation of the universe, the creation of matter and energy is all that matters. We have never witnessed that happen ever, we don't know how, or if it was caused by anything.

The fact we can cause things like a shed to be built in the backyard is entirely irrelevant to the creation of matter and energy in and of itself. They are not remotely equal, or even related propositions.

I believe I understand the point. Premise (1) and premise (2) are related analogically. I fully agree that the kind of "beginning to exist" that is in view in premise (1) is categorically different than the universe "beginning to exist" in premise (2). However, they are related analogically. The principle of causality, for example, would apply to both "beginnings" even though they are categorically different. If the universe - matter and energy - began to exist, it would also have a cause. Unless you want to deny premise (2).
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I believe I understand the point. Premise (1) and premise (2) are related analogically. I fully agree that the kind of "beginning to exist" that is in view in premise (1) is categorically different than the universe "beginning to exist" in premise (2). However, they are related analogically. The principle of causality, for example, would apply to both "beginnings" even though they are categorically different. If the universe - matter and energy - began to exist, it would also have a cause. Unless you want to deny premise (2).

We have no reason to believe that the concept of cause and effect applies to the creation of the universe though. Cause and effect is necessarily a temporal construct, you need a passage of time for a cause to then create an effect. It may not be a long period of time, but you still need some passage of time.

All the evidence we have says time came into existence with the universe itself, the idea of "before" the universe is logically incoherent. Without time, you can't have cause and effect.

So, you need to justify how the universe coming into existence requires a cause, when there's no plausible way cause and effect would even work until after the universe already came into existence.
 
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
We have no reason to believe that the concept of cause and effect applies to the creation of the universe though. Cause and effect is necessarily a temporal construct, you need a passage of time for a cause to then create an effect. It may not be a long period of time, but you still need some passage of time.

All the evidence we have says time came into existence with the universe itself, the idea of "before" the universe is logically incoherent. Without time, you can't have cause and effect.

So, you need to justify how the universe coming into existence requires a cause, when there's no plausible way cause and effect would even work until after the universe already came into existence.

Herein you seem to concede that spacetime came into existence. But you also are arguing that its coming into existence (presumably from nothing) does not require an explanation.

So would you suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing and no explanation is required?
 
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
I think this is a misunderstanding of eternity. It is not a never ending passage of time. Eternity is timeless.

Not in the context that it has been used in this discussion. The question has been posed: was the singularity eternal, or did it begin to exist? It's even in the Kalam argument itself as the second premise. "Begin to exist" necessarily indicates a point in time.
 
Upvote 0

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
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.

"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.
 
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
Herein you seem to concede that spacetime came into existence. But you also are arguing that its coming into existence (presumably from nothing) does not require an explanation.

So would you suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing and no explanation is required?

Of course it came into existence, that's the scientific consensus.

Everything after that is your words, not mine though. I don't presume the universe came into existence from nothing, and I don't argue it doesn't require an explanation.

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. If something does exist outside the universe, we don't know what rules govern it, and we certainly have no reason to believe the rules that apply to this universe would apply to the conditions that sparked the big bang, or whatever environment existed at that point.

So, again, premise one must be justified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
If something does exist outside the universe, we don't know what rules govern it, and we certainly have no reason to believe the rules that apply to this universe would apply to the conditions that sparked the big bang, or whatever environment existed at that point.
I’m a huge Sci-Fi fan, other worlds with alternate laws of nature (and intelligent life) is definitely a fascinating thought!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
The conclusion (3) does not imply that God is the cause of the universe. Additional argumentation is required to establish that. To his credit, Craig (the most well-known supporter of this argument) does present additional arguments, but too often the focus is on the first tree lines of the argument.
This is relatively speaking. Relatively speaking things do begin to exist. Sure, these things are composed of parts that preceded their existence. But even then the principle holds true that whatever begins to exist has a cause. An apple is composed of matter that long pre-existed the apple, but the apple still does, relatively speaking, begin to exist at some point. It is caused by the apple tree.

What you might be contesting is premise (2) - that matter and energy itself began to exist. Do you mean to contest this idea?
Or another approach...

Did you begin to exist or has your person always existed? Have you ever seen a childbirth? Does a child begin to exist at some point or have they always existed as such?
All these examples suggest that you are talking about creation ex materia. Is that what the first premise refers to? Does the second premise also refer to creation ex materia? If it does not then there's a problem with equivocation, with the argument switching between two different meanings of the relevant terms.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
This is an uncharitable interpretation of what many atheists actually say. It's not a matter of "nothing created everything" or "nothing created the universe." A more charitable interpretation is that the universe did not need to be created. It was not the case that there was nothing, and that this nothing somehow generated a universe; there never was a nothing.
 
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

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Well, look who's back? How 'ya doing, Arch? I haven't seen you around for quite some time!
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's been a while! I'm doing well. And am pleased to see many familiar posters still around! :)

Yes, some of us are still here, just rock'n along. Do you still read/study philosophy, or have you let that go and moved on to something else?
 
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

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, some of us are still here, just rock'n along. Do you still read/study philosophy, or have you let that go and moved on to something else?
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.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0