Kalam Cosmological Argument

[IntoTheVoid.]

Hey, I don't post here much but I would really appreciate your help on something. I've tried reasoning the Kalam argument out with atheists a few times and it has always gone pretty well (as well as something like that could go). They usually agree with me that the argument is valid. The only way they can really go about defeating the argument, it seems, is by attacking the premise of the argument [Anything which begins to exist has a cause for coming into existence].

I have almost always been told that this can't be true because
a.) The universe and has always existed.
b.) the premise is irrelevant because there are an infinite amount of motions that gave existence to the universe
c.) Because science has shown us that the universe formed itself out of "nothing".

I've done a little research and tried to offer some answers to these objections. I was hoping people on here could critique my reasoning and provide some constructive criticism. I'll keep it short so as to save time and energy.

{reply to a}: A infinite task cannot be completed. In an infinite sequence no end or beginning can be reached and consequently no point in the sequence can be reaced either. Thus the universe could not have been around for an infinite amount of time and therefore has to be finite.
{reply to b}: the same concept problem of infinity can be applied here as well because it's difficult to see how an infinite series of causes and effects is even possible.
{reply to c}: This does not effectively evade the problems of an infinite sequence and other inconsistencies. The word "nothing" is being used ambiguously here. If it is used properly used (meaning to have no properties at all) it is absurd to say that any thing can come from no thing. The only way out is to change the meaning of meaning of "nothing" into an entity having at least some existent property necessary to form a universe or whatever. But this commits an equivocation and is only a more creative way of saying that the universe was formed by an inanimate object of some kind, implying several things that are shown by replies a and b to be impossible.

One more pesky half-objection suggests that there could have been two or more sentient causes for the universe (i.e. more than one God). While an atheist would have to disagree with this, anyways, I hear it quite a bit. As a christian, I would like to be able to show why this can't be so but can't figure out how. It seems like there should be some simple theological reason why it can't be the case.

For those that aren't familiar with the Kalam Argument, here it is:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for coming into being.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause for coming into being.

Thanks for your help in advance. I would like to post here more often as my schedule and limited knowledge lets me.

 

[The Nihilist]

Why do you think this argument is decisive? Couldn't the universe have a naturalistic cause?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

YouTube - Refuting the Cosmological Argument

 

[Gracchus]

Something has always existed.

Every spatial distance implies a temporal distance.

Since it is always now, there is no future to be reached. What isn't now is the past. The perceptual world is aways in the past.

So, to answer your objection, there is no infinite time necessary to reach now from the past. A past event may be infinitely far away, but it is and always has been "now". Think of "now" as the zero point of time in an expanding universe.

To quote Ambassador Koch, the Vorlon from "Babylon 5": ""You have always been here."

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Hey, I don't post here much but I would really appreciate your help on something. I've tried reasoning the Kalam argument out with atheists a few times and it has always gone pretty well (as well as something like that could go).

What do you mean, trying out the argument with atheists? If you are trying to argue God, how about you chose an argument for the existence of God instead. Ideally you would chose something that you yourself find convincing to begin with, instead of using something that you apparantly cannot even vouch for. (And on top of that, the adressees cannot in most cases could not vouch for either.)

And as an aside, the problems with the Kalam argument are numerous. First premise is iffy, second premise is iffy, and the conclusion is not even a God.

 

[Chesterton]

I have a question: "What has begun to exist without a cause?" I'll even be overly generous and leave out the word "begins", and just ask "What exists without a cause?"

 

[Valerian Red]

I have a question: "What has begun to exist without a cause?" I'll even be overly generous and leave out the word "begins", and just ask "What exists without a cause?"

I'll second. Examples from everyday life.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Virtual particles, apparently.

 

[Chesterton]

Virtual particles, apparently.

I'll rephrase the question. Let me add "without using the word 'apparently'."

 

[Valerian Red]

One more pesky half-objection suggests that there could have been two or more sentient causes for the universe (i.e. more than one God). While an atheist would have to disagree with this, anyways, I hear it quite a bit. As a christian, I would like to be able to show why this can't be so but can't figure out how. It seems like there should be some simple theological reason why it can't be the case.

Just from the hip, if two or more sentient causes acted simultaneously you have multiple creators and therefore polytheism; in any case no longer atheism. If the co-creation is not quite simultaneous you have a creator and non-creator, hence monotheism. If your opponent insists the co-creators are neither divine, s/he begs the question of their origin or of the absurdity of their infinite age. Is that any help?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have a question: "What has begun to exist without a cause?" I'll even be overly generous and leave out the word "begins", and just ask "What exists without a cause?"

You are doing it all wrong. If somebody makes an argument, it is their responsibility to demonstrate the premises to be true, NOT the 'recipient' of the argument to show them to be false.

Now in the case of the KALAM, the premise first premise reads "Whatever begins to exist has a cause for coming into being". I think it is quite a tall order to demonstrate that to be true.


(As an aside, consider a cake. When does that begin to exist anyway? When you take it out of the oven, or when?)

 

[Isambard]

I have a question: "What has begun to exist without a cause?" I'll even be overly generous and leave out the word "begins", and just ask "What exists without a cause?"

What thing has ever "begun to exist"?

 

[Chesterton]

You are doing it all wrong.

I'm doing nothing wrong. I'm asking a question related to the thread topic.

What thing has ever "begun to exist"?

I already allowed for that idea to be left out. So, "what thing exists"?

 

[Isambard]

I already allowed for that idea to be left out.

Yes but your subsequent questions have nothing to do with the Kalam argument.

So, "what thing exists"?

Anything that has an effect on or a presence in the physical universe.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm doing nothing wrong. I'm asking a question related to the thread topic.

OK, your, more generous, question was:
"What exists without a cause?"

Consider everything, i.e. the sum total of anything that can be said, or thought to be in existence. And let's call it E. Now, if you could think of something (that is not part of E) that is the reason/cause for E, you were not considering the sum total of everything that could be said to exist to begin with.

IOW, the sum total of everything that exists, exists without a reason or cause for its existence. By definition.


Case in point. Imagine the universe were the sole thing in existence. (Where universe is of course the sum total of its constituent parts, i.e. time-space continuum, planets, quantum stuff, rocks, the singularity etc pp)
By definition, there is no cause for it, no? (And on top of that there is no temporal dimension by which you could measure its beginning either)

Alternatively, you might also consider God + universe. (Where God + universe is of course the sum total of theis constituent parts, i.e. time-space continuum, planets, quantum stuff, rocks, the singularity, God (I don't know how one would splice that up) etc pp)
And again, by definition there is no cause for the compound of God + universe. (And on top of that there is also no temporal dimension by which you could measure its beginning either).

 

[Chesterton]

I'll try again, very simple:

"What exists without a cause?"

 

[Lord Emsworth]

And as an aside, the problems with the Kalam argument are numerous. First premise is iffy, second premise is iffy, and the conclusion is not even a God.

And I totally forgot ... The KALAM implies utterly trashy and inferior theology. God is better seen as logical necessity for everything else that exists. And not as something that exists within an implied temporal dimension where things can be said to begin to exist.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'll try again, very simple:

Did you miss my post? I'll try again, too.

"What exists without a cause?"

Consider everything, i.e. the sum total of anything that can be said, or thought to be in existence. And let's call it E. Now, if you could think of something (that is not part of E) that is the reason/cause for E, you were not considering the sum total of everything that could be said to exist to begin with.

IOW, the sum total of everything that exists, exists without a reason or cause for its existence. By definition.


Case in point. Imagine the universe were the sole thing in existence. (Where universe is of course the sum total of its constituent parts, i.e. time-space continuum, planets, quantum stuff, rocks, the singularity etc pp)
By definition, there is no cause for it, no? (And on top of that there is no temporal dimension by which you could measure its beginning either)

Alternatively, you might also consider God + universe. (Where God + universe is of course the sum total of theis constituent parts, i.e. time-space continuum, planets, quantum stuff, rocks, the singularity, God (I don't know how one would splice that up) etc pp)
And again, by definition there is no cause for the compound of God + universe. (And on top of that there is also no temporal dimension by which you could measure its beginning either).

 

[Isambard]

I'll try again, very simple:

"What exists without a cause?"

Lord Emsworth addressed this, twice.

If you want to make it more basic, let's turn your question around and ask "what exists because of a cause?". As you can see, your question isn't really a question, but rather an exercise in veiled-supposition.

 

[Chesterton]

If you can't think of anything known to exist without a cause, you can just say so. It's all right. I'll still respect you. I'll respect you even more.