Kalaam Cosmological Argument

[Mark Quayle]

If time was created as part of the universe then concepts like "begins" and "cause" fall apart when applied to the universe itself.

If time existed prior to the creation of the universe or if there is some sort of orthogonal "Heavenly time" that God lives within then we pass the buck to God. God must ask himself where the Heavenly universe came from and where God came from and so on.

I disagree. They only fall apart when used to define (understand) infinity, or First Cause. To my thinking, First Cause cannot be subject to (governed by) any principles we consider applicable to the universe, unless it submit itself to it, or unless it is inherent to its being --hence, not only Time, but such things as Logic itself, Reason, and logical principles of Cause and Effect sequence, are "invented" by First Cause, put in place by him, and governed by him. They are HIS.

Thus, God did not "come from". He simply IS.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I would contest that (3) implies that God is the cause of the universe. The only thing the argument, if successful, would actually demonstrate is that there is something which exists uncaused and cannot be identified with the universe. This need not have any other traditional property of God, and could just as easily be conceived of as something like a quantum vacuum.

I think we need a deeper analysis of causality and necessity to get the Kalam off the ground.

Your thinking is sound to a point. That is, there is logic, or at least good reason, in finding other traditional property of First Cause, for example, that there can be only one.

 

[Silmarien]

Your thinking is sound to a point. That is, there is logic, or at least good reason, in finding other traditional property of First Cause, for example, that there can be only one.

Indeed. Plotinus forever.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would view God primarily as the "principle" that makes things real rather than abstract and potential...

That's interesting because that's how Whitehead saw it as well, though his philosophy focused a great deal on the notion of Creativity as primordial and subsequent to God's actualizing any particular state of affairs.

 

[FireDragon76]

Indeed. Plotinus forever.

Why only one? In Daoism, the physical universe was created through the Three Pure Ones (who were not beginningless, but emerged from the void), and isn't even governed by them.

For some reason, I like that explanation better than saying "God always existed as pure act". Pure act without potential. So potential is subsequent to God. Why not focus on potentiality instead of actuality as the true creative principle?

 

[Silmarien]

Why only one? In Daoism, the physical universe was created through the Three Pure Ones (who were not beginningless, but emerged from the void), and isn't even governed by them.

Sounds like we should be discussing the void itself rather than the Three Pure Ones, in that case.

For some reason, I like that explanation better than saying "God always existed as pure act". Pure act without potential. So potential is subsequent to God. Why not focus on potentiality instead of actuality as the true creative principle?

That is a very big question. If I remember correctly, the traditional answer would be that something is required to activate various potencies--potentiality is characterized by non-existence, so possibilities do not just wish themselves into actual existence.

My own answer would be... a lot more continental in flavor. I have strong sympathies for the Platonic tradition, but at the end of the day, I'm still an existentialist and at some level think that existence has to precede essence. According to Thomism, what God is, is actuality. He isn't endless possibilities, but rather Being itself. I think putting existence and actuality upfront like that is really crucial, or all of reality fades back into abstraction and then vanishes into nothingness.

(My love affair with Sartre has really spun out of control, mais qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire? )

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sounds like we should be discussing the void itself rather than the Three Pure Ones, in that case.



That is a very big question. If I remember correctly, the traditional answer would be that something is required to activate various potencies--potentiality is characterized by non-existence, so possibilities do not just wish themselves into actual existence.

My own answer would be... a lot more continental in flavor. I have strong sympathies for the Platonic tradition, but at the end of the day, I'm still an existentialist and at some level think that existence has to precede essence. According to Thomism, what God is, is actuality. He isn't endless possibilities, but rather Being itself. I think putting existence and actuality upfront like that is really crucial, or all of reality fades back into abstraction and then vanishes into nothingness.

(My love affair with Sartre has really spun out of control, mais qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire? )

Actuality only in our logic preceeds potential, possibility, or whatever else describes what First Cause causes. I prefer to think as God is (not as if he was there for infinitely long before creating), so he does. But again, it is impossible for us to powder the metal to analyze each piece, nor to scinter it. It comes as a package. But that is a poor picture.

 

[Silmarien]

Actuality only in our logic preceeds potential, possibility, or whatever else describes what First Cause causes. I prefer to think as God is (not as if he was there for infinitely long before creating), so he does. But again, it is impossible for us to powder the metal to analyze each piece, nor to scinter it. It comes as a package. But that is a poor picture.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you treating actuality, potentiality, possiblility, etc., as concepts, and saying that God is beyond them? I would agree with that, though I don't think it makes much sense to not associate a First Cause with the act of existence. If God is defined as what is giving contingent things being, making them real instead of effectively abstract, story-book characters, then I think existence has to be a big part of how we understand him.

(Of course, I am being very imprecise here and probably not making much sense. We're kind of dancing at the edge of the debate over whether God is Being Itself or Beyond Being, and that's about as arcane as it gets.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds like we should be discussing the void itself rather than the Three Pure Ones, in that case.

The Void is always a great topic, 'cuz that means we get to talk about things that folks like Lawrence Krauss or Frank Close would talk about.

Or not. (Not sounds good!)

 

[FireDragon76]

Sounds like we should be discussing the void itself rather than the Three Pure Ones, in that case.

That's why Daoism is ultimately mystical and contemplative, even if it has conventional religious aspects as well (such as veneration).

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you treating actuality, potentiality, possiblility, etc., as concepts, and saying that God is beyond them? I would agree with that, though I don't think it makes much sense to not associate a First Cause with the act of existence. If God is defined as what is giving contingent things being, making them real instead of effectively abstract, story-book characters, then I think existence has to be a big part of how we understand him.

(Of course, I am being very imprecise here and probably not making much sense. We're kind of dancing at the edge of the debate over whether God is Being Itself or Beyond Being, and that's about as arcane as it gets.)

Possibility is a concept we embrace as real, when it is only speculation. (If I'm wrong about that, then for sure God (First Cause) alone is the master of it, but that sounds a bit contradictory to me. Worse would be to say God is the master of Chance. There is no such thing as pure chance.) Potentiality is just about as bad as Possibility. Actuality, however, is (snerk, snerk), possible! Nevertheless, they are all three more our rhetoric than truly logical considerations concerning God, I think.

I agree about the debate --it is a bit silly to think we can decide whether God is beyond being. I tend toward the idea (though I hate the feel of human thinking about it) that God is being itself (not to say that existence = God, but that existence is what it is because God exists. I hope the implication there is plain). I tend to think that all truth is what it is because God is truth (I hope, again, that doesn't come across as like a Chinese proverb or something).

 

[Amoranemix]

Out of laziness I have only read this thread till post 110.

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

To examine the validity and soundness, we first ought to define concepts. 'Universe', 'cause' and 'beginning to exist' are ambiguous, as discussion in this thread has illustrated.

What is the universe? During most of the 20th century the universe was simply everything that existed (minus perhaps God) and was thought to be identical to the observable universe. The observable universe is our little patch of spacetime, i.e. everything we can observe, and is thought the have a size of about 42 billion lightyears. Today, most cosmologists believe that reality may also includes spacetime before, after or outside the observable universe. I will assume the KCA refers to the observable universe.

What does 'beginning to exist' mean ? It has been said in this thread that every beginning is merely a rearrangement of preexisting stuff. However partikels can really appear without having had a prior existence. For example, photons are created from energy (e.g. an electron jumping to a lower energy state). Also particles pairs can appear in vacuum out of nowhere, a phonomenom responsible for Hawking radiation, the evaporation of black holes.

Presumably the argument refers to a radical transformation of something already existing or the appearance of new stuff. Hence the Big Bang was a beginning, as what came after was radically different from what was before, if anything was before. Therefore, if we accept the Big Bang took place, the the observable universe had a beginning.

What is a cause ? That seems to be the most tricky concept and the adherents of the KCA ought define it. That would then allow to support premise 1, or undermine it.

Did the universe have a cause ? The 'everything' in premise 1 usually points to every part of the universe, as that is what we appear to observe. However, concluding from that that the universe itself also has a cause would be committing the fallacy of composition : That the parts of a whole have an attribute, does not imply that the whole has that attribute. More specifially, as has been pointoud out, time seems to be a requirement for causality. Hence, if time began at the beginning of the Big Bang, then that requirement would not be met. Hence the KAM would be invalid (or premise 1 would be unsupported).

However, in the last two decades the view of cosmologists on time has shifted. Today most of them believe that there probably was time before the Big Bang. Hence, with proper definitions for cause and 'beginning to exist', it is plausible that the observable universe had a cause.

That was the easy part. Next must be demonstrated that that cause was the god of the Bible. I wish those willing to take up that challenge, strength and perseverance. They will need it.

Saying that time began at a certain moment already suggests that the spacetime universe had a beginning. If time began, then something caused time to begin.

Why would that be ? You seem to assuming it must have a cause because you can't think of how it could have arisen without a cause. However, that is not how one reaches valid conclusions. In addition, it should point you to possibility that maybe time did not have a beginning.

God, as Christians understand him, exists outside of time. Time is his creature. There is no "heavenly time", only a timeless eternity.

What does that mean, existing outside of time ? What is timeless eternity ? What does it mean to exist inside of time ?

Could you describe a quantum vacuum? I'm not sure it can be described in terms of something that is very different from "the universe". Also, the idea of an eternally existing universe or multiverse would entail an actual infinity, which has been shown to be philosophically absurd. Hilbert's Hotel is a good example of this - Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel – Wikipedia

Most cosmologists accept the possibilith of infinity and Hilbert's paradox is not a real paradox.

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.

What does that mean, (not) being bound by time or space ?

Eternity has no meaning without time.

I think the reverse it true. Time is meaningless to the eternal.[1] 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.

[1] 'Being meaningless to' means 'unable to understand'. So, according to you, the eternal cannot understand time, correct ?

What does it means for something to be “timeless” or timeless or beyond our concept of time ?

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.[1] Because matter can neither be created or destroyed (Law of Conservation of Mass), the cause must be "immaterial".[2] Because all space and time exists within our universe, the cause must be "spaceless" and "timeless".[3] Because the cause is above or outside our natural universe, the cause must be "supernatural".[4] In order to have created a universe to include all the power and energy within it, the cause must be unimaginably powerful.[5] 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.[6] It has to be eternal and without cause, otherwise something more powerful must have caused this "cause" to exist.[7] Thus, a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, supernatural, uncaused, personal "cause", must exist if the universe began and has a cause.

(I am assuming the "s don't mean anything.)
[1] If causality does not require prior time, why could the universe not have created itself ?
[2] The law of conservation of mass is not a sturdy one. Although I believe the cause to be immaterial, I don't understand how that is supposed to follow from that law.
[3] So, your argument depends on there being space nor time prior to the Big Bang, something that has yet to be proven.
[4] That is stretching the meaning of the word supernatural.
[5] What evidence do you have that the cause created anything ? As far as I know, causing and creating are not the same activity.
Moreover, creating a universe may require very little energy. In addition, we have no evidence that that cause can do anything else than create a universe.
[6] What evidence can you present that the cause chose to cause the universe ? Also, can only a person choose ?
[7] Why is that ? What evidence can you present that the cause still exists ?

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?

In mathematics infinities appear often without preventing measurement. An example is something we all learned in school : geometry in Euclidian space.
Why couldn't the moment the Big Bang started be a reference point ?

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?

The singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang and at the center of black holes is a prediction of the general theory of relativety. However, there is consensus in the scientific community that those conditions are so extreme that they are outside the realm of applicabity of that theory. Only few cosmologists believe the Big Bang started with a singularity.

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.

If the universe is everything that exists, why couldn't it be eternal, for example by being cyclic ?

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.

Actually, cosmologists have plenty of ideas. See for example the documentary series 'Before the Big Bang' on Youtube.

My primary frustration here is the failure to define God and explicitly argue from a cause of the universe to anything resembling that definition.

Does it really need to be explicitly stated that God is defined as the creator of the universe? Is anyone confused on that point?

That would be me. I find Christianity confusing. One problem is that God's implicit definition is adapted to the argument. Hence every Christian arguments supports its own god. If they were all sound there would be plenty of gods. These might all be the same, but most apologists, like William Lane Craig, just assume they are, just like most victims of those arguments.
Clear definitions provide clarity, Clarity leads to truth. Some Christians prefer belief in God over reality and hence avoid clarity like the plague.
After you have proven that the universe was created, you may call the creator God, but unless you can prove divine attributes, you would merely have deceived people.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Did the universe have a cause ? The 'everything' in premise 1 usually points to every part of the universe, as that is what we appear to observe. However, concluding from that that the universe itself also has a cause would be committing the fallacy of composition : That the parts of a whole have an attribute, does not imply that the whole has that attribute. More specifially, as has been pointoud out, time seems to be a requirement for causality. Hence, if time began at the beginning of the Big Bang, then that requirement would not be met. Hence the KAM would be invalid (or premise 1 would be unsupported).

Why would time be a requirement for causality? Logical sequence, yes, but time? Cause and effect is a principle that doesn't seem to me to depend on time, any more than actuality does. Perhaps reality by our parameters, i.e. existence as best we can understand it, but what (as we would define it) do we know does or does not exist beyond that?

I see time as only what we know how to deal with, and even that, we don't do very well.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

The universe didn't begin to exist as we would fully understand it, we can only approximate based on science that the "beginning" of the universe as we can observe it started with the Big Bang, but we cannot go further back atm.

And the universe's cause doesn't have to be a mind, the whole argument is taking causality and then exacerbating the point of its ultimacy to mean we must posit an absolute origin, rather than accept that we may not be justified in saying much beyond what we can observe about the universe, given the speculative nature of cosmology prior to Big Bang (generally accepted as accurate by many people due to the pretty compelling evidence)

What if the universe is self aware and is just going through cycles that manifest in what we observe as the universe's expansion from the Big Bang? It still constitutes a cause and the beginning part can be qualified with a sub premise to reflect our limited perspective cosmologically. Does it prove anything? No, because it's so vague in the conclusion it could apply to an extra dimensional entity still within time and space as a multiverse and thus our universe is just one thing it made out of many, but is still bound temporally

 

[Mark Quayle]

What if the universe is self aware and is just going through cycles that manifest in what we observe as the universe's expansion from the Big Bang? It still constitutes a cause and the beginning part can be qualified with a sub premise to reflect our limited perspective cosmologically.

Yet, if the universe is First Cause, self-aware, etc, it is BOUND by laws, particularly noticeable is the law of Cause and Effect. You have logically contradicted yourself, since such a universe did not Cause the laws it is subject to. You may then argue that the laws were "co-emergent" with the ripening universe, but that is worse, as it begs outright for a beginning, which therefore had to be caused. In this thought I hope you can see why we attend to "First Cause With Intent".

 

[muichimotsu]

Yet, if the universe is First Cause, self-aware, etc, it is BOUND by laws, particularly noticeable is the law of Cause and Effect. You have logically contradicted yourself, since such a universe did not Cause the laws it is subject to. You may then argue that the laws were "co-emergent" with the ripening universe, but that is worse, as it begs outright for a beginning, which therefore had to be caused. In this thought I hope you can see why we attend to "First Cause With Intent".

You're suggesting there has to be an infinite regress problem, but you're trying to apply knowledge of things we don't have evidence of and speculating as to things functioning equally on different dimensions: our dimension could be one level of a universe existing, but it doesn't negate a causal connection of the universe shifting into a different dimension

And laws are technically descriptive, not prescriptive, we observe them as such, but we don't know for certain how things work causally pre Big Bang; things could be more quantum mechanics and the idea of a purely sequential causal chain goes out the window.

You're still trying to insinuate intent onto something that doesn't require it except as you presume more things that are as unsubstantiated as the later claims regarding the "first cause"

 

[muichimotsu]

Why would time be a requirement for causality? Logical sequence, yes, but time? Cause and effect is a principle that doesn't seem to me to depend on time, any more than actuality does. Perhaps reality by our parameters, i.e. existence as best we can understand it, but what (as we would define it) do we know does or does not exist beyond that?

I see time as only what we know how to deal with, and even that, we don't do very well.

Actually causality would require temporality, because causality is still a sequence of events in time, you're trying to separate space and time utterly, which makes no sense, because for space to continue cogently, there has to be time for it to progress forward, or you suggest space is static, rather than dynamic. Motion happens in time, in moments of an arrow moving towards a target (to use Zeno's paradox as an image example), progress and causes leading to effects makes no sense if there isn't time to measure them and understand their motion as being sensible and connected

If you can't demonstrate something that could exist without time that isn't static and frozen, then you're engaging in an argument from ignorance: because we can't show this thing you speculate is beyond time and space, it must therefore exist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually causality would require temporality, because causality is still a sequence of events in time, you're trying to separate space and time utterly, which makes no sense, because for space to continue cogently, there has to be time for it to progress forward, or you suggest space is static, rather than dynamic.

With First Cause, sequence of cause and effect (which itself I believe to be his invention also) need not be temporal. I suppose he could well have spoken his "final" (our concept, i.e. finished product) into existence, but subjects us to the temporal process that was necessary for that finished product to work out. He need not see it our way. He said it --it therefore was.

If you can't demonstrate something that could exist without time that isn't static and frozen, then you're engaging in an argument from ignorance: because we can't show this thing you speculate is beyond time and space, it must therefore exist.

Your concept of "static and frozen" is also a reference to time. But the being who invented both time and cause-and-effect does not fit our understanding of such things, not being subject to them. He causes them --he need not be under their authority. This, however does not represent argument from ignorance any more than any primary presupposition we assume in order to embark on any logical sequence. Science and philosophy MUST assume, to begin reasoning. Evolution depends on unproven steady state. Cosmology can only assume absolute laws on which to depend. We like to think, if we think, that our primary assumption is Existence, and we assume much even after that, such as that empiricism is valid, and so on. If Existence, as we mean it, is a mechanical fact, then it is caused. It cannot be self-existent without cause. If it is not a mechanical fact, then we are calling it God, or First Cause With Intent. I call existence a mechanical fact, full of God's love and mercy; it is what it is because God exists --God does not exist because he is subject to that principle, but existence is what it is, because God exists.

 

[muichimotsu]

With First Cause, sequence of cause and effect (which itself I believe to be his invention also) need not be temporal. I suppose he could well have spoken his "final" (our concept, i.e. finished product) into existence, but subjects us to the temporal process that was necessary for that finished product to work out. He need not see it our way. He said it --it therefore was.

Your concept of "static and frozen" is also a reference to time. But the being who invented both time and cause-and-effect does not fit our understanding of such things, not being subject to them. He causes them --he need not be under their authority. This, however does not represent argument from ignorance any more than any primary presupposition we assume in order to embark on any logical sequence. Science and philosophy MUST assume, to begin reasoning. Evolution depends on unproven steady state. Cosmology can only assume absolute laws on which to depend. We like to think, if we think, that our primary assumption is Existence, and we assume much even after that, such as that empiricism is valid, and so on. If Existence, as we mean it, is a mechanical fact, then it is caused. It cannot be self-existent without cause. If it is not a mechanical fact, then we are calling it God, or First Cause With Intent. I call existence a mechanical fact, full of God's love and mercy; it is what it is because God exists --God does not exist because he is subject to that principle, but existence is what it is, because God exists.

Seems like you're conveniently defining this First Cause so none of the things you established as applying to EVERYTHING else apply to it, which brings up further questions of cogency, because you're turning the whole established model on its head

If you always just shift away any responsibility of this entity to obey any logic, then of course you could argue it initiated causality and logic itself, which just smacks of special pleading and ad hoc reasoning

Evolution doesn't assume anything like what you're describing, that's cosmological as a term anyway.

Assumptions in an axiomatic sense are beneficial in their functionality, not how reasonable they might seem if you turn your brain off to engage in speculation on this non entity that exists outside of the 2 things essential to even make sense of anything in the universe. Is it in meta time and meta space or somehow still functional in spite of not having a place in time or space in any meaningful manner?

The cause doesn't have to be a mind for the universe to work in a mechanical sense (your words), because mechanical things would work on their own, particularly if we're considering that the universe is not like a computer or such, it's dynamic and organic in that it's innate, not constructed

And now you're just getting into further nonsensical special pleading in the ontological argument, that God is necessary and thus must exist, defining and equivocating God in such a way that it cannot not exist intuitively

 

[Mark Quayle]

Seems like you're conveniently defining this First Cause so none of the things you established as applying to EVERYTHING else apply to it, which brings up further questions of cogency, because you're turning the whole established model on its head

Established? by whom? No. To me, at least, it is only logical that he is not subject to that to which he subjects his creation. That is not to say, for example, since he invents existence and eternity that he is not eternally existent, but rather that our concept of that, as we apply it validly to this universe, we are able only in part to attribute it to him. We don't know what Existence is, as he is. We only know that he is.