The Existence of God & The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[YouAreAwesome]

If the universe comes into being then there exists something other than the universe which brought it into existence.

But you are arguing differently to the OP. You are saying "If the universe comes into being" rather than "the universe came into being". According to your new way of describing Premise 2 we only have the answer "we don't know if it did, or if it didn't - the evidence actually doesn't point in ANY direction"; if it does, can you please tell me of that evidence; btw the big bang and an ever expanding universe is not evidence (even though it also debatable that it is ever-expanding).

You know perfectly well that if it has a beginning it did not create itself nor did it just pop into being from nothing.

You write "if it has a beginning" and that's the point, we don't know if it had a beginning. Also of importance, even if we could establish that it did have a beginning, even then it's difficult to promote a "cause" because it is the only event to come into being (can you name anything else that comes into being in the sense that you believe the universe "came into being"?). We have no way of knowing how a thing might "come into existence", perhaps it has a cause, perhaps it doesn't. Quantum physics hasn't answered this one. Have you grasped how the universe can be of finite time yet trace back infinitely into the past? That it can approach a beginning but never reach it?

You want to resort to claiming the universe never began to exist i.e. that it is eternal.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm trying to explain that we don't actually know if the universe has a beginning or not and so talking of causes is irrelevant.

All the evidence is against you however.

I'm sorry, but what evidence? The bgv fails and the Big Bang does not claim to be the absolute beginning. So what evidence are you talking about?

God has made His existence known through His creation and you deny this.

Why are you talking about denying His existence? I believe in God and believe we can gain insight about Who He is by examining nature. I don't think this equates to finding a logical proof for His existence from nature.

Maybe you can tell us why you think nothing can create the universe and why nothing is so discriminatory as to only create universes?

I don't think nothing can create the universe; I'm not sure the universe was created in the way we understand "creation".

Please also feel free at anytime to offer evidence that the universe has always existed.

I'm not arguing that it has eternally existed in a constant-discrete kind of way moving backwards into the past, but that it is possible for space-time itself to come into existence from an infinitesimal singularity, and we know nothing about the properties of this singularity and how it operates because we don't know enough about Quantum Mechanics yet. If we move backwards hour by hour infinitely, in the way we think of an hour today, we might reach nothing. But if we move in space-time backwards forever, we will not reach nothing.

 

[Anguspure]

Unfortunately this is where I start to have troubles though. What the cause was outside of time is irrelevant with respect to time. All that is important is what the cause is once it enters time.

My thinking is a little bit stranger than that, although I have to admit I have not investigated it at a proper level.

My thought is that perhaps time is only observed concurrent with the effect.

That the cause (in any case) is never a part of the time that is observed along with the effect.

If there was only ever one observable finite effect, then time would only be observed to pass as the effect persisted, and time would cease to be observed upon the demise of the effect.

Obviously we are unable to isolate an observation like this because we inhabit a sea of effects and we ourselves the observers are effects all of which creates the impression of a seamless passing of a time dimension.

My main problem here is that the timeless potential cause manifests as an actual cause instantaneously in time and occurs simultaneously with it's effect. This I see as a violation of causality's underlying principle of temporal succession. If simultaneous cause and effect are possible then a chain of any number of successive causes and effects would also be possible. We simply don't observe the universe working this way. As I've said before I find this notion as absurd as retrospective causality.

Nevertheless there is a point at which a cause exists and any effect attributable to that cause does not.

Furthermore I am doubtful that a cause (or anything for that matter) can occur instantaneously in time. Every cause must actuate in time for some non-zero amount of time. For example, we can't have a force that acts on an object instantaneously. A force that acts for zero length of time is the same as no force at all. The force must act over some non-zero time to actuate its effect. Instantaneous in time is synonymous with not existing. If an object were to only exist for an instant it would not have existed at all.

In terms of cause and effect, a cause does not ever occur in time. It is always an effect that occurs in time. If a cause finds itself occurring in time then it really must be an effect.

 

[Anguspure]

Yes, the Big Bang and inflation from a singularity are only disputed on the fringes. But this is not evidence for a cause, it is evidence for a singularity, right?

I would say that what we observe provides a trajectory of reason and logic that can carry us by inference past a point of scientific observation. Am I being difficult?

Observations of quantum effects have only ever taken place on this side of the singularity and any hypothesis of what lies beyond is an inference from this side, that necessarily employs tools from this side.

Yes, the observation appears to affect the results

Observer determination is a central premise of Quantum theory.

So the question could be asked what is the nature of the observer that determines the results?

and the quantum fluctuations appear to have no cause.

That quantum fluctuations appear to have no cause due to a loss of locality in this universe is attributable to the limits of observation. A game of Scientistic hide and no see.

The idea is mathematical and relates to Limits.

Now here is what I find, interesting. You have assured me previously that a failure to observe a cause of quantum fluctuation results in an indeterminacy in respect of the metaphysical principle that underlies logic.

But now you introduce the logic of mathematics to supply an explanation that defies the trajectory of the evidence.

Time approaches a beginning but never reaches it (hence the word "asymptotically"). Perhaps a creative way to describe it has to do with fractals. You can zoom in on particular fractals infinitely and it will continue to change shape infinitely.

Time may be the same, just because we are moving towards the past infinitely, doesn't mean we will "get to a beginning".

Once again a form of logic is slipped in to explain something that has already been declared indeterminate and in defiance of causality and logic.

Nevertheless I think I can appreciate what you are saying, and it implies that time exists independently of effect.

My thinking is that time is a perception of the observer that is relative to the effect. That the observation of time is concurrent with the effect and not the cause, and that the impression we have of time as being something independent is due to the fact that we ourselves are effects dwelling in a sea of effects.

Most theoretical physicists and philosophers disagree with Craig, and not because he's a christian, but because the arguments are not solid. Physical evidence breaks down and theoretical claims are all we have for now. If Ellis is correct then it is not impossible for there to be a beginning, but it is also not impossible for there to be no beginning.

It is true that when we deny reason, even the most unreasonable claims become not impossible.

So in the face of uncertainty on the Scientific method it is not unreasonable to appeal to what is most plausible on the evidence, and any claims that come from the very large pool of theoretical possibilities, particularly when they threaten the very foundation of reason itself, remain in their place as mere possibilities for continued investigation and should pose only a theoretical threat to the trajectory of the evidence.

This is why W.Lane-Craig has called the organisation he founded “Reasonable Faith” and not “Concrete Arguments”.

 

[anonymous person]

Oh I believe God exists, but I have not arrived at that through logic. I'm far more interested in discussing his nature rather than his existence.

I've heard Kalam before but never looked into it in great depth. I find it an interesting argument , but for me it raises far more questions than it answers.

I also enjoy a bit of debate if it remains amicable. I like to be challenged and discover other points of view.

It seems then that we have in common more than I initially thought.

I too believe God exists and not because logic led me to that conclusion.

I too am more interested in learning and talking about Him than learning and talking about syllogisms.

I too enjoy amicable debate! So it seems we are in full accord here.

I think if anything, arguments such as the one which is the subject of this thread can furnish opportunities for us to take a closer look at the views we do hold and to change them if such change is warranted.

The Bible has been and always will be my number one source for learning about God. I also enjoy reading books on systematic theology. Have you read Geisler's Systematic Theology?

 

[anonymous person]

But you are arguing differently to the OP. You are saying "If the universe comes into being" rather than "the universe came into being". According to your new way of describing Premise 2 we only have the answer "we don't know if it did, or if it didn't - the evidence actually doesn't point in ANY direction"; if it does, can you please tell me of that evidence; btw the big bang and an ever expanding universe is not evidence (even though it also debatable that it is ever-expanding).



You write "if it has a beginning" and that's the point, we don't know if it had a beginning. Also of importance, even if we could establish that it did have a beginning, even then it's difficult to promote a "cause" because it is the only event to come into being (can you name anything else that comes into being in the sense that you believe the universe "came into being"?). We have no way of knowing how a thing might "come into existence", perhaps it has a cause, perhaps it doesn't. Quantum physics hasn't answered this one. Have you grasped how the universe can be of finite time yet trace back infinitely into the past? That it can approach a beginning but never reach it?



I'm not claiming anything. I'm trying to explain that we don't actually know if the universe has a beginning or not and so talking of causes is irrelevant.



I'm sorry, but what evidence? The bgv fails and the Big Bang does not claim to be the absolute beginning. So what evidence are you talking about?



Why are you talking about denying His existence? I believe in God and believe we can gain insight about Who He is by examining nature. I don't think this equates to finding a logical proof for His existence from nature.



I don't think nothing can create the universe; I'm not sure the universe was created in the way we understand "creation".



I'm not arguing that it has eternally existed in a constant-discrete kind of way moving backwards into the past, but that it is possible for space-time itself to come into existence from an infinitesimal singularity, and we know nothing about the properties of this singularity and how it operates because we don't know enough about Quantum Mechanics yet. If we move backwards hour by hour infinitely, in the way we think of an hour today, we might reach nothing. But if we move in space-time backwards forever, we will not reach nothing.

I was simply making a hypothetical statement when I said, " If so and so...."

Assume for a minute that the universe began to exist roughly 14 billion years ago which is what the evidence indicates. Either:

1. It caused itself.
2. It was caused by nothing.
3. It was caused by something.

1. Is a contradiction of terms and necessarily false.
2. Nothing cannot cause something because nothing is nothing.
3. This is what you're left with.

It is inescapable. If the universe begins to exist, there is a cause which transcends it, i.e. minimally a spaceless, timeless, immaterial agent.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I would say that what we observe provides a trajectory of reason and logic that can carry us by inference past a point of scientific observation. Am I being difficult?

I think then, that you must be able to understand why the KCA is rejected, yes?

So the question could be asked what is the nature of the observer that determines the results?

If you can answer this, you just might receive a nobel prize

That quantum fluctuations appear to have no cause due to a loss of locality in this universe is attributable to the limits of observation. A game of Scientistic hide and no see.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's unclear.

Now here is what I find, interesting. You have assured me previously that a failure to observe a cause of quantum fluctuation results in an indeterminacy in respect of the metaphysical principle that underlies logic.

But now you introduce the logic of mathematics to supply an explanation that defies the trajectory of the evidence.

I'm sorry, I don't see the problem. One, we do not understand the cause of Quantum fluctuations. And two, time can regress infinitely into the past asymptotically within a finite space-time. How are these in contradiction?

It is true that when we deny reason, even the most unreasonable claims become not impossible.

So in the face of uncertainty on the Scientific method it is not unreasonable to appeal to what is most plausible on the evidence, and any claims that come from the very large pool of theoretical possibilities, particularly when they threaten the very foundation of reason itself, remain in their place as mere possibilities for continued investigation and should pose only a theoretical threat to the trajectory of the evidence.

This is why W.Lane-Craig has called the organisation he founded “Reasonable Faith” and not “Concrete Arguments”.

I would say it's reasonable to have faith in a "beginning" and it is also reasonable (and more correct) to just say - we don't know at this point.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Assume for a minute that the universe began to exist

Under this assumption your post makes sense. But there is no need to assume the universe began to exist.

 

[Everybodyknows]

My thinking is a little bit stranger than that, although I have to admit I have not investigated it at a proper level.

My thought is that perhaps time is only observed concurrent with the effect.

That the cause (in any case) is never a part of the time that is observed along with the effect.

If there was only ever one observable finite effect, then time would only be observed to pass as the effect persisted, and time would cease to be observed upon the demise of the effect.

Obviously we are unable to isolate an observation like this because we inhabit a sea of effects and we ourselves the observers are effects all of which creates the impression of a seamless passing of a time dimension.



Nevertheless there is a point at which a cause exists and any effect attributable to that cause does not.


In terms of cause and effect, a cause does not ever occur in time. It is always an effect that occurs in time. If a cause finds itself occurring in time then it really must be an effect.

Ok, I think I've got what you're saying. So you believe that time is not an entity in and of itself but rather an illusion arrising for our perception of the 'sea of effects' progressing. That is a really interesting way of thinking about time, and I must say I like it a lot.

The way I have always thought about cosmic beginings is a little different though. I view the universe not as a completely separate created entity, but rather it being within or part of God and it existing timelessly in him and with him. A part of God's nature if you will. I don't view God as causing the universe to exist in much the same way as he didn't cause Jesus to exist. The universe is part of God but has its own unique discernible charecteristics, in much the same way the trinity is one but has 3 distinctly discernible parts.

I view the universe as uncaused in the same way I view God as uncaused. The universe begins in the sense that time and space begin but it does not begin to exist as it is timelessly existent in him at t=0.

In this way my poor olde brain doesn't have to grapple with uncaused causes and something from nothing. Take all this as my thought bubble on the issue rather than a philosophy I am deeply committed to.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I'd like to also join @Everybodyknows and strongly dispute Premise 1. I notice a problem in the Premise after thinking through the discussion that I didn't notice previously that I'm semi-confident completely debunks it.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

As noted there are two different ways we can think about beginning to exist. The first is a reordering of matter such as a table, or a planet, or a person. These things did not exist until something caused them to exist, by rearranging the matter. But the matter within all of them previously existed, just in a different form. A tree later becomes a table. Or dust later becomes a person. If we think of beginning to exist is this way, then we are not talking about matter itself beginning to exist, we are talking about reordering matter into a newly existing state. However, Premise 2 is not talking about this kind of beginning to exist. Premise 2 is talking about matter itself beginning to exist

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

So Premise 2 is talking about matter beginning to exist, not about tables beginning to exist.

Problematically, the wording of Premise 1 is misleading as it leads the reader to think about how things in our observable lives began to exist by causes (tables, people etc). But the "whatever begins to exist" only applies to one thing, the universe. Rather than saying "whatever" the Premise should only say "the universe" because there is nothing else that fits the Premise. So Premise 1 is actually saying:

1. The universe began to exist and has a cause

And this is exactly the conclusion. So in stating Premise 1 and 2 the KCA is actually stating the conclusion because only the universe began to exist in the sense the argument is using the phrase "began to exist".

In short, we don't know if anything has begun to exist in the sense of not existing followed by existing with regards to physical matter so Premise 1 is nonsensical. Kalam Cosmological Argument defeated.

Checkmate atheists!
...oh wait..

Seriously though, this is the issue I was trying to argue but I don't think I managed to put it quite so succinctly.

We live in a universe where we don't observe things beginning to exist (in fact it's forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics). If we are going to extrapolate anything about cosmic beginnings from the behaviour of things we observe in the universe wouldn't it be more plausible to say the universe didn't begin to exist as we never observe anything coming into existence in the true sense?

For me the very term 'begin to exist' carries the implication of something coming forth from nothing. For this reason I strongly favour a universe that didn't begin to exist.

 

[anonymous person]

Under this assumption your post makes sense. But there is no need to assume the universe began to exist.

I am glad you see that it does.

Whether or not you think there is a need to assume the universe began to exist has nothing to do with premise 2.

Premise 2 does not say that we need to assume that the universe began to exist, but that it did begin to exist and you either maintain that that is more plausible than its negation or you can say you don't feel comfortable making such a judgement. The point remains that it either did or it is eternal.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Premise 2 does not say that we need to assume that the universe began to exist, but that it did begin to exist and you either maintain that that is more plausible than its negation or you can say you don't feel comfortable making such a judgement. The point remains that it either did or it is eternal.

I've written the this over and over but I'm not sure you are getting it. The answer to Premise 2 is - UNKNOWN. Furthermore, we are also unable to assign a probability to either option, so talking of plausibility is just guesswork. It is NOT more plausible than its negation, and of course, neither is it LESS plausible; it is UNKNOWN.

And for the last time, I will not explain it again, I am not arguing the universe is eternal in the sense that I believe you are implying. We can't take infinite equal discrete steps into the past, but we can move infinitely into the past with regard to space-time because space-time potentially came into being from what we perceive to be the infinitesimal (quantum). I refer back to my posts on fractals, limits and asymptotes. I'm more than happy to answer questions regarding this concept if you do not understand, which it appears to me, that you don't because you keep comparing a beginning with eternity as though eternity reaches back forever in the way we think of time.

 

[anonymous person]

I've written the this over and over but I'm not sure you are getting it. The answer to Premise 2 is - UNKNOWN. Furthermore, we are also unable to assign a probability to either option, so talking of plausibility is just guesswork. It is NOT more plausible than its negation, and of course, neither is it LESS plausible; it is UNKNOWN.

And for the last time, I will not explain it again, I am not arguing the universe is eternal in the sense that I believe you are implying. We can't take infinite equal discrete steps into the past, but we can move infinitely into the past with regard to space-time because space-time potentially came into being from what we perceive to be the infinitesimal (quantum). I refer back to my posts on fractals, limits and asymptotes. I'm more than happy to answer questions regarding this concept if you do not understand, which it appears to me, that you don't because you keep comparing a beginning with eternity as though eternity reaches back forever in the way we think of time.

You don't have to know whether the premise is true or not for the argument to be successful. All you have to do is say, "you know what, I have reviewed the evidence and think it is more plausible to say that it did begin to exist as opposed to saying it did not."

In addition, you can indeed know that the universe began to exist wholly apart from any argument if you have a personal relationship with its Creator, Jesus Christ. Would you like to come to know Him?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

"you know what, I have reviewed the evidence and think it is more plausible to say that it did begin to exist as opposed to saying it did not."

I do not think it is more plausible, and neither does science.

In addition, you can indeed know that the universe began to exist wholly apart from any argument if you have a personal relationship with its Creator, Jesus Christ. Would you like to come to know Him?

Sorry mate, just because we disagree on the science and philosophy, doesn't mean we disagree on there being a Creator God Who entered into mankind via Jesus, He Who set all things in motion; I hope you don't assume all who disagree with you are non-christian. Better to assume the best than the worst in my opinion. If I wasn't so comfortable in my own shoes I could easily take offense to your post. Especially seeing as it says 'Christian' under my name.

 

[anonymous person]

I do not think it is more plausible, and neither does science.

Science does not "think" anything. I think you mean "scientists".

Secondly, the consensus among cosmologists is that the universe did come into being roughly 14 billion years ago in the big bang.

Thirdly just because some scientists or even all scientists think something is the case does not make it so. To argue thus would be to commit a fallacy.

Sorry mate, just because we disagree on the science and philosophy, doesn't mean we disagree on there being a Creator God Who entered into mankind via Jesus, He Who set all things in motion; I hope you don't assume all who disagree with you are non-christian. Better to assume the best than the worst in my opinion. If I wasn't so comfortable in my own shoes I could easily take offense to your post. Especially seeing as it says 'Christian' under my name.

I am a Christian.

Nor should you be offended if someone concludes you aren't when you deny something that the bible is quite clear on. That the universe is the handiwork of God, and that it was created by Him and that He is transcedent over it while yet immanent within it is a doctrine attested to throughout scripture. You deny this. So yes, I have good reason for asking if you have been born again. Your persuasion that the universe never began to exist definitely does not come from the Holy Spirit my friend.

Nor is it my claim that you are not born again and a sincere follower of Christ.

If you are, I happily take your word for it.

Are you?

 

[Everybodyknows]

I am a Christian.

Nor should you be offended if someone concludes you aren't when you deny something that the bible is quite clear on. That the universe is the handiwork of God, and that it was created by Him and that He is transcedent over it while yet immanent within it is a doctrine attested to throughout scripture. You deny this. So yes, I have good reason for asking if you have been born again. Your persuasion that the universe never began to exist definitely does not come from the Holy Spirit my friend.

Nor is it my claim that you are not born again and a sincere follower of Christ.

If you are, I happily take your word for it.

Are you?

Many Christians, even here on this forum, would conclude the same about you for the fact that you believe the universe is 14 billion years old and began with the Big Bang.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

the consensus among cosmologists is that the universe did come into being roughly 14 billion years ago in the big bang.

The consensus is that the classical physical laws break down 14 billion years ago. Before this it is not clear.

you deny something that the bible is quite clear on

Do I? Is the Bible clear on what happened throughout the creation process? You really think the Bible is a theoretical physics manual?

That the universe is the handiwork of God

This depends on how we qualify the statement, but I am very much in agreement that God created all we know.

that it was created by Him

Indeed.

He is transcedent over it

He is most definitely above the range of only natural physical human experience (being He is Spirit), for sure.

immanent within it

Indeed.

You deny this

Huh?

I have good reason for asking if you have been born again.

Is your good reason that I disagree with you?

Your persuasion that the universe never began to exist definitely does not come from the Holy Spirit my friend.

I try not to have a persuasion when discussing science and philosophy (though I'm sure we all do). I attempt to argue objectively based on the natural evidence only. Now if the natural evidence does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible or your sense of the Spirit within you, then you might find yourself in a tough spot. Isn't it better to trust God and follow the evidence where it leads?

Are you?

 

[anonymous person]

Many Christians, even here on this forum, would conclude the same about you for the fact that you believe the universe is 14 billion years old and began with the Big Bang.

And they would be wrong. For I have never claimed to believe the universe is 14 billion years old!

 

[Everybodyknows]

And they would be wrong. For I have never claimed to believe the universe is 14 billion years old!

Now I'm perplexed. You have gone to great lengths in this thread to argue the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe but you don't accept that the universe started hot and dense about 14 billion years ago? This seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed on by physicists.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

And they would be wrong. For I have never claimed to believe the universe is 14 billion years old!

I guess all of this is wrong...
Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe - Wikipedia
Planck (spacecraft) - Wikipedia
...because since the 18th century or so it conflicts with the Bible.

But hmmm who was there when the universe was created? I know God was... perhaps God Himself wrote the Bible... oh no it possibly was Moses... or later... but they definitely wrote word for word exactly what God wanted them to write... without a doubt... it's WAY MORE doubtful to trust the scientific evidence that's for sure...

 

[anonymous person]

I guess all of this is wrong...
Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe - Wikipedia
Planck (spacecraft) - Wikipedia
...because since the 18th century or so it conflicts with the Bible.

How so?

How does the existence of cosmic background radiation conflict with the Bible's claim that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"????

Seems such radiation would confirm the claim would it not? After all, the radiation exists as a result of a ginormous explosion of light and energy which would have been present in the beginning. Seems to me that the author of Genesis, far from conflicting modern findings, records events right in line with what these findings indicate.