The Existence of God & The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Anguspure]

Neither have they observed nothing. But I move through an infinite "half intervals" with every movement. I also own zero cows. If I point to the sky I could continue in that direction infinitely. Are you really trying to argue than nothing is less absurd than infinity?

Ah...no.

I am arguing that the infinite number is like (the concept) nothing or zero. In mathematics they are both theoretical numbers that have useful properties but neither of them is something that can be encountered in the real world.

Mind you your infinite half intervals would be a useful concept for my crew when they are told that smoko time finishes at half 10, they could sit around all month and never have to turn to. But of course the reality is something altogether different, as we can demonstrate with a little bit of strategically applied momentum.

..and your no cows thing reminds me of a joke: What is red and invisible? No tomatos. WHich is of course as nearly as bad as a joke as it is an argument for the reality of nothing.
I had a wonderful series of discussions with my 10 year old son who maintained that he could create "nothing" in this way and therefore that "nothing" was something. Needless to say I was amused but not convinced.

...and your pointing at the sky and continuing on in a direction infinitely? Well I'm gob smacked. Really?

So you are arguing that it is more likely there is literally a "point" when the universe began out of nothing, than it is for the the total energy in the system to remain constant with perpetual quantum momentum? I see these as equally absurd and equally likely.

You have, in an earlier post, already stated:

So you are arguing that something existed before the universe, the cause of the universe.

..so I don't no why you think I am arguing that the universe began out of nothing. Clearly the universe originated out of the cause of the universe.

Furthermore, you have to posit a cause for this universe. But how is that cause distinct from the universe?

The cause is necessary, timeless, immaterial, physical, powerful, personal; whereas the universe is contingent, in time, material, physical, and constrained by the law of conservation of energy.

And what existed before the cosmic expansion? Because it wasn't nothing.

I agree except that in so far as time is a property of the physical universe, the concept of "before" is probably quite meaningless.

Stephen Hawking argues against this proposal. He argues time can be finite without a boundary condition (using a sphere to show that the surface area is finite, but there is no beginning or ending boundaries). Hawking argues that asking what was before the universe, makes no sense because time was not a dimension. The criticism of Hawking is you must accept imaginary numbers as able to represent time.

Yeah, I remember reading this a while ago, perhaps in the late nineties but it struck me more as the musings of someone who is wrestling with the concept of a beginning rather than as anyhting that was fixed enough to challenge a proof.

Certainly this is addressed in the BGV paper.

I see imaginary numbers are as real as infinity and zero; they are useful tools in the real world.

This maybe where we have reached something of an impasse.

I still maintain that there is a distinction between these sorts of numbers, as useful as they are, and the real world of things that actually exist.

For example where an infinity might be used to model a structure at the abstract design stage, nobody can then go to the structure once it has been built and say "look there is an infinite thing".

Important to our discussion is that it is not a clear cut "beginning boundary" but at that supposed boundary, there are more options than just: Uncaused-cause --> Universe

Yes, there are many things that might be inserted between the Cause and our Universe. This is why I stated the broadest possible concept which might include multiverse, quantum vacuum, strings and/or who knows what.

Do you believe the quantum fluctuations are God?

No, if it is a real thing the quantum vacuum itself would be the work of the uncaused cause, particularly as a fluctuation by its nature would involve some sort of spacetime which is not a property of the Cause.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

This maybe where we have reached something of an impasse.

I still maintain that there is a distinction between these sorts of numbers, as useful as they are, and the real world of things that actually exist.

When I owe someone money, and I have no money, can't get much more real world than that.

immaterial, physical

What's the difference? How can the cause be physical if there's no universe for it to exist in (no space-time)?

personal

Why?

No, if it is a real thing the quantum vacuum itself would be the work of the uncaused cause, particularly as a fluctuation by its nature would involve some sort of spacetime which is not a property of the Cause.

Must the quantum vacuum have a cause? This is precisely the problem with the KCA proposal, the fluctuations may not have a cause; after all, they pop up randomly in a vacuum.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Do you have any evidence that our universe came from some eternally preexisting quantum vacuum or multiverse?

Do you have evidence it didn't? There are multiple attempts to solve the beginning of the universe. We don't know what came before the Big Bang, it's still being researched, so why pin our hopes on this idea?

 

[anonymous person]

Do you have evidence it didn't?

Yes I do. This evidence has already been appealed to by Anguspure. There is also scientific evidence which confirms the evidence already put forward by Anguspure.

There are multiple theories attempting to solve the beginning of the universe. We don't know what came before the Big Bang, it's still being researched, so why pin our hopes on this idea?

I'm not pinning hope on the idea that the universe has a cause. My views about God and my hope does not rest on the success or failure of the Kalam. Rather, I am arguing that the Kalam is one piece of evidence in a cumulative case for theism in general and that I have good reasons and evidence to think the Kalam is a good argument.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Yes I do. This evidence has already been appealed to by Anguspure. There is also cientific evidence which confirms the evidence already put forward by Anguspure.

Impossible. There is no current theoretical model explaining the earliest moments of the universe's existence. Full stop. Conjecture only.

 

[anonymous person]

Impossible. There is no current theoretical model explaining the earliest moments of the universe's existence. Full stop. Conjecture only.

Have you reviewed the evidence?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Have you reviewed the evidence?

Please point me in the direction of what you believe to be "evidence". Do you mean the temperature and density fluctuations in the CMB? Apologies if I missed a link from Angus, I don't know what "evidence" you are meaning.

 

[FredVB]

One of my favorite arguments has always been the Kalam cosmological argument.

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

Some may know of it, some may not, but it's a simple argument that when combined with others... can be quite powerful to make a case for the existence of God.

This is exactly it, which should be said to deniers, even though many such will say they are "just skeptics", and not really seeing what I have meant with saying there is necessary being, and something as the universe with all that came to be in it did not just come to be from nothing, if there was really nothing before, nothing would come to be, there would just be nonexistence. There is necessary existence then and that is beyond the universe. The universe does not bang, contract, and bang again, there isn't the elasticity for it to be possible, as physicists understand. The consensus now is that this universe will continually expand.

 

[anonymous person]

Please point me in the direction of what you believe to be "evidence". Do you mean the temperature and density fluctuations in the CMB? Apologies if I missed a link from Angus, I don't know what "evidence" you are meaning.

No.

The evidence I am appealing to is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. The theorem is proof that any universe which has on average been expanding at a positive rate has a past boundary and therefore cannot be infinite in the past. This theorem applies equally to inflationary theories and these alternative theories you keep talking about and here is the kicker....the theorem holds regardless of the conditions during the Planck time era, i.e. the earliest moments of the universe.

I said all that to say that it simply does not matter what went on during the earliest moments of the universe, since our universe is undergoing a positive expansion, it cannot be past infinite. Therefore your objection is moot. Any appeal to our ignorance concerning that era is simply irrelevant. The theorem still stands.

Read more: CERN Probes Big Bang | Reasonable Faith

 

[Anguspure]

When I owe someone money, and I have no money, can't get much more real world than that.

Ain't that the truth. So show me the money you owe and show me the money you don't have, and I don't want any of your theoretical numbers now or I'll have your TV.

What's the difference? How can the cause be physical if there's no universe for it to exist in (no space-time)?

Non-physical - the cause is non-physical.

Why?

So that (He) is enabled to move from a necessary state, that of the uncaused cause, to one of (His) choosing. If the uncaused cause is impersonal then there is no reason for it to change. It simply exists.

Must the quantum vacuum have a cause? This is precisely the problem with the KCA proposal, the fluctuations may not have a cause; after all, they pop up randomly in a vacuum.

It is perhaps theorized that these things are random but as the Rabbi says: Coincidence is not a Kosher word.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Everything that has ever been observed to begin to exist has a cause, without exception, and you regard this as an inadequate sample group? Really?
I think the rational thing to say is that the sample group may be regarded as adequate when it consists of everything that might be observed to exist or conceivably exist.

This is where I think the KCA falls flat, right at premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. What have we ever actually observed beginning to exist? Matter? Energy? We have only really observed things that already exist changing form in one way or another due to a cause. The only thing we believe began to exist is the universe itself and we can't observe that, we infer it from evidence. So really we only have a sample size of 1 and we have no idea if it had a cause or not.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

No.

The evidence I am appealing to is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. The theorem is proof that any universe which has on average been expanding at a positive rate has a past boundary and therefore cannot be infinite in the past. This theorem applies equally to inflationary theories and these alternative theories you keep talking about and here is the kicker....the theorem holds regardless of the conditions during the Planck time era, i.e. the earliest moments of the universe.

I said all that to say that it simply does not matter what went on during the earliest moments of the universe, since our universe is undergoing a positive expansion, it cannot be past infinite. Therefore your objection is moot. Any appeal to our ignorance concerning that era is simply irrelevant. The theorem still stands.

Read more: CERN Probes Big Bang | Reasonable Faith

Craig is not using the theorem correctly in using it to show a beginning. It doesn't show a beginning of the universe but the beginning of classical space time under certain assumptions; one of the assumptions is that only classical space time applies. So it is true classical space time breaks down at some point in the past, but it says nothing about quantum space; that is, the theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics because it's assumptions are classical. It says nothing of defining the beginning of the universe, only the beginning of classical physical laws; and this is why I was asking about defining the universe. If the universe does not include quantum space, then it has a cause, quantum space. But the quantum space could have a beginning, or it could be eternal, we don't know. The theorem breaks down under its own assumptions in quantum space.

 

[anonymous person]

This is where I think the KCA falls flat, right at premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. What have we ever actually observed beginning to exist? Matter? Energy? We have only really observed things that already exist changing form in one way or another due to a cause. The only thing we believe began to exist is the universe itself and we can't observe that, we infer it from evidence. So really we only have a sample size of 1 and we have no idea if it had a cause or not.

The post you typed did not exist before you sat down and typed it. It began to exist the moment you began to transfer your thoughts to the keys on your keyboard.

The device you used to type the post did not exist prior to its creation. Neither did it pop into being on your desk from nothing without any antecedent cause.

I think it is possible to miss the forest for the trees here.

I didn't observe you typing your post nor did you observe the creation of your electronic device with which you compile these posts. We don't conclude therefore that the device or your posts just popped into being with any cause whatsoever! We rightly and intuitively understand that from nothing, nothing comes, which is the chief reason supplied to confirm the truth of premise one. There are two additional arguments for premise 1:

(ii) If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.

(iii) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.

The third is inductive and without it, science itself would undermined.

So if you think something can come from nothing, that being can come from non being then that's fine. I have seen no reason whatsoever to think that. In light of the above premise 1 is more plausible than its negation which is what you need for the argument to go through. Notice here we are not attempting to argue for certainty, but rather merely that it is more plausible than not.

Hope this helps!

 

[anonymous person]

Craig is not using the theorem correctly in using it to show a beginning. It doesn't show a beginning of the universe but the beginning of classical space time under certain assumptions; one of the assumptions is that only classical space time applies. So it is true classical space time breaks down at some point in the past, but it says nothing about quantum space; that is, the theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics because it's assumptions are classical. It says nothing of defining the beginning of the universe, only the beginning of classical physical laws; and this is why I was asking about defining the universe. If the universe does not include quantum space, then it has a cause, quantum space. But the quantum space could have a beginning, or it could be eternal, we don't know. The theorem breaks down under its own assumptions in quantum space.

Not only is there zero evidence that this "quantum space" you envision exists, but even if it did, two things follow:

1. The quantum space is causally disconnected to our universe

Or.

2. The quantum space is causally connected to our universe.

If 1 were the case, then the very fact that it is causally disconnected to our universe eliminates it as a cause of our universe. Full stop.

If 2 were the case, then this quantum space exists as a constituent of our space-time manifold and thus you are back at square one.

The two philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past supported by a wealth of scientific confirmation for said arguments render premise 2 more plausible than its negation full stop.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The post you typed did not exist before you sat down and typed it. It began to exist the moment you began to transfer your thoughts to the keys on your keyboard.

The device you used to type the post did not exist prior to its creation. Neither did it pop into being on your desk from nothing without any antecedent cause.

I think it is possible to miss the forest for the trees here.

I didn't observe you typing your post nor did you observe the creation of your electronic device with which you compile these posts. We don't conclude therefore that the device or your posts just popped into being with any cause whatsoever! We rightly and intuitively understand that from nothing, nothing comes, which is the chief reason supplied to confirm the truth of premise one. There are two additional arguments for premise 1:

(ii) If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.

(iii) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.

The third is inductive and without it, science itself would undermined.

So if you think something can come from nothing, that being can come from non being then that's fine. I have seen no reason whatsoever to think that. In light of the above premise 1 is more plausible than its negation which is what you need for the argument to go through. Notice here we are not attempting to argue for certainty, but rather merely that it is more plausible than not.

Hope this helps!

I don't think you have quite understood my line of reasoning here, allow me to explain better.

I'll use your example of my post coming into existence. My brain used energy from my food to make an idea which then used electrical energy being supplied to my computer to transmit my typing as an electronic signal to the CF servers to create my post. Conservation of energy. I have just taken energy that already exists and eventually reorganised it into this post.

Likewise there was no point at which my phone began to exist. It was put together from other materials that already exist and moulded into its final form. Sure there is a cause in every part of the manufacturing process but at no point does anything come into existence.

So to make my point clear ill put it this way: Everything that exists began to exist when the universe began to exist. All energy, matter and spacetime. Since then the only thing that has happened is rearrangement - energy to matter, matter to energy, atoms fusing into heavier atoms joining into molecules etc.

You see, premise 1 on the surface appeals to our intuition so people skim over it without much thought. What our intuition really tells us is that everything that happens has a cause because that is the nature of the universe in which we live. Premise 1 is in no way intuitive to our experience because we never witness things beginning to exist. So to me this is a faulty premise and the whole argument fails.

I challenge you to give me an example of something causing a thing to come into existence from not existing.

I'm not claiming that the universe necessarily has no cause, it may. I just arguing that premise 1 of this argument has no real basis in evidence or experience. We simply have insufficient information to make such a claim.

 

[anonymous person]

I don't think you have quite understood my line of reasoning here, allow me to explain better.

I'll use your example of my post coming into existence. My brain used energy from my food to make an idea which then used electrical energy being supplied to my computer to transmit my typing as an electronic signal to the CF servers to create my post. Conservation of energy. I have just taken energy that already exists and eventually reorganised it into this post.

Likewise there was no point at which my phone began to exist. It was put together from other materials that already exist and moulded into its final form. Sure there is a cause in every part of the manufacturing process but at no point does anything come into existence.

So to make my point clear ill put it this way: Everything that exists began to exist when the universe began to exist. All energy, matter and spacetime. Since then the only thing that has happened is rearrangement - energy to matter, matter to energy, atoms fusing into heavier atoms joining into molecules etc.

You see, premise 1 on the surface appeals to our intuition so people skim over it without much thought. What our intuition really tells us is that everything that happens has a cause because that is the nature of the universe in which we live. Premise 1 is in no way intuitive to our experience because we never witness things beginning to exist. So to me this is a faulty premise and the whole argument fails.

I challenge you to give me an example of something causing a thing to come into existence from not existing.

I'm not claiming that the universe necessarily has no cause, it may. I just arguing that premise 1 of this argument has no real basis in evidence or experience. We simply have insufficient information to make such a claim.

Your post and the device with which you made it did not come from nothing without any antecedent cause. Everything you made mention of supports this. Splitting hairs is fine but once again you're missing the forest for the trees. From nothing, nothing comes. This is a metaphysical principle and is simply not dependent upon us observing things coming into being. The inductive support is not the chief reason given to support premise 1. If you have misgivings with the appeal to inductive support for premise 1, disregard it. You still have the metaphysical principle and the second supporting argument.

If the universe comes into being it either does so as the result of a sufficient cause or it comes from nothing. Since nothing comes from nothing and never can, if the universe comes into being, it does so as a result of a sufficient cause.

 

[Anguspure]

This is where I think the KCA falls flat, right at premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. What have we ever actually observed beginning to exist? Matter? Energy? We have only really observed things that already exist changing form in one way or another due to a cause. The only thing we believe began to exist is the universe itself and we can't observe that, we infer it from evidence. So really we only have a sample size of 1 and we have no idea if it had a cause or not.

Ah....the infamous taxi cab fallacy raises its wee head. Its always surprising to find people denying causality in this way.
W. Lane-Craig explains:

You can't dismiss the causal principle like a cab once you get to the universe! Premise 1 is not merely a law of nature, like the law of gravity, which only applies to the universe. Rather it's a metaphysical principle that governs all being, all reality...It's hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that premise 1 is more plausibly true than false in the light of the evidence...If the price of denying the arguments conclusion is denying premise 1, then atheism is philosophically bankrupt.

But of course your question:

What have we ever actually observed beginning to exist?

...is valid, and, along with the obvious response, you actually confirming the premise.
Of course nothing can come from nothing, nothing ever could. Something always comes from something else and this is what premise 1 posits; that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

 

[Anguspure]

Craig is not using the theorem correctly in using it to show a beginning. It doesn't show a beginning of the universe but the beginning of classical space time under certain assumptions; one of the assumptions is that only classical space time applies. So it is true classical space time breaks down at some point in the past, but it says nothing about quantum space; that is, the theorem does not apply to quantum mechanics because it's assumptions are classical. It says nothing of defining the beginning of the universe, only the beginning of classical physical laws; and this is why I was asking about defining the universe. If the universe does not include quantum space, then it has a cause, quantum space. But the quantum space could have a beginning, or it could be eternal, we don't know. The theorem breaks down under its own assumptions in quantum space.

Your real alternative to de Sitter or Minokowski space is?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Not only is there zero evidence that this "quantum space" you envision exists, but even if it did, two things follow:

1. The quantum space is causally disconnected to our universe

Or.

2. The quantum space is causally connected to our universe.

If 1 were the case, then the very fact that it is causally disconnected to our universe eliminates it as a cause of our universe. Full stop.

If 2 were the case, then this quantum space exists as a constituent of our space-time manifold and thus you are back at square one.

The two philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past supported by a wealth of scientific confirmation for said arguments render premise 2 more plausible than its negation full stop.

It's not complicated, the way the equations are set up do not apply to quantum mechanics and so fail to apply. The theorem fails to account for quantum mechanics. Do you understand? We can't apply classical laws to quantum space.

 

[Anguspure]

Craig is not using the theorem correctly in using it to show a beginning.

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning....All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent
In the Beginning Was the Beginning
Apparently Vilenkin doesn't know how to use his theorem correctly either .