[_ Old Earth _] The Kalam Cosmological Argument...Reasonable or Not?

[Not_Registered]

The basic outline for the Kalam Cosmological Arguement (KCA) is as such:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.[/*:m:4c55b]
2. The universe began to exist.[/*:m:4c55b]
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.[/*:m:4c55b]

A more detailed version of the KCA, submitted by William Lane Craig, can be seen here. The more detailed version includes arguments against an actual infinite; and thus, against an actual infinite temporal series of past events (or time having no beginning).

Personally, I believe the KCA to be sound and prove the need for, at least, an uncaused cause. Not only is the argument logical, but also it is supported by science. The big bang theory asserts there must have been a beginning to the universe (in time at least), which is what the KCA argues for as well. There are several extended versions of the KCA, which append arguments for the uncaused cause of the universe needing to be the theistic God. Although I follow some of the logic in these supplemental arguments to the KCA, I don't think they undoubtedly prove that the theistic God need be the uncaused cause of the universe. I do, however, believe God to be The Creator of the universe, but I don't think that can be proven in a step-by-step argument (at least not a brief one). There are several factors that influence my belief in the theistic God, but that is neither here nor there.

I was wondering if others believed the KCA to be a sound argument for, at least, an uncaused cause of the universe. And, for those who don't see it to be sound, why not (i.e. where does the argument break down)?

 

[ThinkerMan]

Welcome Aboard!

Personally, I don't find that argument persuasive outside the context of the universe's existence for a variety of reasons. Most have to do with your point #1.

When you say "begins to exist" by definition you must include time, because it infers a transition of time. With respect to the big bang, that is inaccurate. Now I know some of my physicist friends here can clean this up for me, but some modern theories can almost reach "beyond" the big bang to at least begin to postulate as to it's cause.

Not to say this is 100% proven. Rather, far from it. However, perhaps more important is the fact that there is no evidence that some preexisting circumstance didn't "cause" the big bang. In fact, those most likely to oppose the idea of such likely don't believe in the big bang in the first place.

Secondly, the "first uncaused" issue has just as many issues for a scientific viewpoint of creation as it does for "god". If "god" can simply exist without cause, then certainly the universe can. In fact, we have much more evidence of non-thinking things existing than thinking things (besides us six billion, we have little else). If something is "preexisiting" and simply uncaused, it is just as rational, if not moreso, to believe that the universe itself is, as opposed to some conscious and interferring god.

That being said, I appreciate your honesty in seperating your specific theology from this argument. I generally have no issue with someone deriving their theology from non-scientific areanas (though I'd be happy to have a chat in apologetics on it!).

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

 

[Asimov]

The basic outline for the Kalam Cosmological Arguement (KCA) is as such:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.[/*:m:047ce]
2. The universe began to exist.[/*:m:047ce]
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.[/*:m:047ce]

When did the universe begin to exist?

 

[Not_Registered]

When you say "begins to exist" by definition you must include time, because it infers a transition of time.

I am not sure what you are saying here. What the statement "begins to exist" means (as it relates to the universe) is that the universe isn't beginningless. In other words, the universe had a beginning, namely the big bang.

This site provides another interpretation of the KCA which may further clarify the issue. The following is the outline of the argument they provide.

• Argument taken from site:
  1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
  2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
  3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

Hopefully, this clears up the ambiguity of the 1st premise of Craig's KCA. Basically, the implications of the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence," as related to the universe, is that "The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning."

If "god" can simply exist without cause, then certainly the universe can.

Certainly that is true. I am not closed to this possibility. However, the idea of a steady-state static universe is almost unanimously not accepted in the science community as of today. The widely accepted big bang theory is the consensus within the science community. Because this theory (the big bang theory) shows the universe had a beginning we must rule out the eternal existence of the universe.

This is just one reason (a scientific one) that shows an eternal universe (or beginningless universe) to be implausible. Another reason given (which is explained in the link within the original post) is a philosophical one. It entails the impossibility of an actual infinite. Time cannot be beginningless (or extend infinitely backwards). If this were the case then today would never have came because there would be an infinite amount of days before it. The original link discusses, in more detail, the impossibility of an actual infinite.

If something is "preexisiting" and simply uncaused, it is just as rational, if not moreso, to believe that the universe itself is, as opposed to some conscious and interferring god.

I agree with you completely. But as shown above, we must rule out the possibility of a beginningless universe.

When did the universe begin to exist?

Science says at the big bang. One might say at time = 0.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

There is a problem I see in the very wording of the first premise:
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. "
What evidence do you have for this? Nothing has ever been seen coming into existence or being caused to come into existence. There is no reason to infer a cause.
Matter/Energy can not be created or destroyed. There is no necessary beginning to its existence.

 

[Drew]

Greetings "Not_Registered":

First, let me welcome you to the board. It is good to find people who find this subject interesting (as I and several others do).

I do not have the time at the very moment to look at the KCA. However, I will throw in my "Kant-inspired" ideas about causation (and apologies to Kant if I totally misrepresent him). I am compelled by the idea that human minds must (and I repeat must) conceive of the world in terms of cause and effect. It is part of the way the way the mind organizes and structures "sense" data before it can even be experienced. In other words, if the mind did not "bring" the concept of cause and effect and apply it to raw sense data, there would be no intelligible experience at all.

So structuring of sense data in terms of "cause and effect" is a necessary pre-condition to any intelligible mental experience at all. In short, I think that humans cannot help but see the world in this way. So, I would speculate that we cannot form any meaningful explanation for the existence of something unless notions of "cause" are involved. This is not to say that there is not a "higher truth" - a true "matter of fact" about how the Universe came to be that does not deploy notions of causation. I just think that humans are "conceptually limited" and could not make sense of such an explanation.

I think this idea of "conceptual limitation" is important in these contexts and is a possibility that is often overlooked. The limited size of our brains and / or its "hardwiring" may place boundaries on the kinds of concepts that we can come up with, even in principle. Just as the tiny brain of an ant just cannot "hold all the stuff" that would be required for it to understand quantum mechanics, so might it be the case that our minds cannot grasp certain aspects of reality which can only grasped by the mind of God (or some more sophisticated being).

All this may only be indirectly related to your topic.

 

[Quath]

The universe has always existed and has a beginning. So that may mess up that argument.

It has a beginning at the Big Bang event. However, the Big Bang created time as well as space and energy/matter. So for all of time, the universe has existed.

The first argument "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is an observation for the most part. This does not imply truth. It is also contradicted in the quantum world where things come in and out of existance at random with no cause.

Quath

 

[Asimov]

When did the universe begin to exist?

Science says at the big bang. One might say at time = 0.

No, Science says that the universe expanded at the big bang.

 

[Not_Registered]

There is a problem I see in the very wording of the first premise:
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. "

I don't see the trouble with the first premise. In fact, it is generally accepted. The crux of the argument (the second premise) is where most people find objection with the KCA.

The first premise is based on the principle of the impossibility of creation ex nihilo. Craig discusses the simplicity and clear rationality of the first premise in the original link. An excerpt that deals with the first premise is shown below.

• Excerpt from Craig's Article:
  "Premiss (1) strikes me as relatively non-controversial. It is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of nothing. Hence, any argument for the principle is apt to be less obvious than the principle itself. Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause; he only denied that one could prove the obviously true causal principle.[29] With regard to the universe, if originally there were absolutely nothing-no God, no space, no time-, then how could the universe possibly come to exist? The truth of the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit is so obvious that I think we are justified in foregoing an elaborate defense of the argument's first premiss."

In fact, he (Craig) sees it as so basic that he spends a noticeably less amount of time discussing it. He mainly focuses on the second premise. He does this because, as noted before, the first premise is generally accepted, because the alternative (or creation ex nihilo) is wildly absurd.

What evidence do you have for this? Nothing has ever been seen coming into existence or being caused to come into existence.

Look in the mirror.

I just think that humans are "conceptually limited" and could not make sense of such an explanation.

Sounds like someone I know.

The universe has always existed and has a beginning. So that may mess up that argument.

That statement is self-contradictory. If not, then I have always existed and have a beginning.

It has a beginning at the Big Bang event. However, the Big Bang created time as well as space and energy/matter. So for all of time, the universe has existed.

It has a beginning. Something that has a beginning, cannot, by definition, be eternal (or always exist). The statement "for all of time, the universe has existed" is vacuous, in that it says or proves nothing. It’s like me saying, "For all of my life, I existed." Yeah, so what? My life defines my existence, so that statement is tautological. It says nothing. Time defines the universe's existence. So to say "for all of time, the universe has existed" is to make a tautological statement. You can conclude nothing from it. Just as my life defines my existence, time defines the universe's existence. So what? To try and conclude something from this one must presuppose something, namely that existence isn't possible outside of time.

I could say, "I existed all of my life; therefore, I have always existed." However, this presupposes that existence isn't possible outside of my life. In the same manner, to say, "the universe existed all of time; therefore, it has always existed" is to presuppose that existence isn't possible outside of our space-time continuum.

The first argument "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is an observation for the most part. This does not imply truth. It is also contradicted in the quantum world where things come in and out of existance at random with no cause.

To reply to this, it would be best for me to provide another excerpt from Craig's article.

• Excerpt from Craig's Article:
  "Now in fact particle pair production furnishes no analogy for this radical ex nihilo becoming, as Davies seems to imply. This quantum phenomenon, even if an exception to the principle that every event has a cause, provides no analogy to something's coming into being out of nothing. Though physicists speak of this as particle pair creation and annihilation, such terms are philosophically misleading, for all that actually occurs is conversion of energy into matter or vice versa. As Davies admits, "The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre- existing energy into material form."[32] Hence, Davies greatly misleads his reader when he claims that "Particles . . . can appear out of nowhere without specific causation" and again, "Yet the world of quantum physics routinely produces something for nothing."[33] On the contrary, the world of quantum physics never produces something for nothing."

Also, are you insinuating that there could have at one "time" before time, been nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and then...poof. The universe. Hmmm. And people find it hard to believe in God.

 

[Not_Registered]

No, Science says that the universe expanded at the big bang.

Semantics. If that isn't just a semantical issue, then please explain the "difference" to me. Also, I can reference many scientist (physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologist, etc.) that use the same terminology (i.e. beginning of time) as I have.

Science can't describe what happened before planck time (t=10^-43 seconds). But science does agree that the big bang was the beginning of time. If not, then how can we measure 1 second "after" the big bang if there was no beginning?

Also, if you don't accept the big bang as the beginning of time, then the question "When did the universe begin to exist" is invalid. The universe can't begin to exist if there is no beginning.

 

[Asimov]

No, Science says that the universe expanded at the big bang.

Semantics. If that isn't just a semantical issue, then please explain the "difference" to me. Also, I can reference many scientist (physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologist, etc.) that use the same terminology (i.e. beginning of time) as I have.

I don't doubt that it was the beginning of time. I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm saying it wasn't the beginning of the universe.

Science can't describe what happened before planck time (t=10^-43 seconds). But science does agree that the big bang was the beginning of time. If not, then how can we measure 1 second "after" the big bang if there was no beginning?

Quantum Theory has a lot to say about that, I'm sure. I don't know how physicists explain it, I'm not well versed in QM.

[quote:4f35d]Also, if you don't accept the big bang as the beginning of time, then the question "When did the universe begin to exist" is invalid. The universe can't begin to exist if there is no beginning.

[/quote:4f35d]

The beginning of time, and the beginning of the universe are two separate issues. You're converging them as if they mean the same thing.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

When I look in the mirror I see heavy materials born out of the outer core of a dying star and hydrogen formed when the universe was starting up in its current from.
They have not been caused to exist. If you're arguing along this avenue, then the only thing that has ever been made to exist is the universe and your first premise and your conclusion mean precisely the same thing. Thus your argument is completely circular.
You need to actually have support for the assumption that things can be or must be caused to exist. Matter/Energy is eternal, it cannot be destroyed and it cannot be created.

 

[Quath]

The universe has always existed and has a beginning. So that may mess up that argument.

That statement is self-contradictory. If not, then I have always existed and have a beginning.

It is not self contradiction if "time" has a beginning. We know that either time did not exist "before" the Big Bang or it was at the quantum level and was virtually nonexistance.

So while time existed the universe existed. Therefore the universe has always existed, right?

It has a beginning. Something that has a beginning, cannot, by definition, be eternal (or always exist). The statement "for all of time, the universe has existed" is vacuous, in that it says or proves nothing. It’s like me saying, "For all of my life, I existed." Yeah, so what?

That only works if you can say "for all of time I existed" not "for all my existance I existed."

Quath

 

[bibleberean]

Explosions create nothing.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I hope this is not to complicated... ;-)

 

[Asimov]

Explosions create nothing.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I hope this is not to complicated... ;-)

It wasn't an explosion, bibleberean... :roll:

 

[bibleberean]

"The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."


http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang.html

Whatever :-D

 

[Not_Registered]

When I look in the mirror I see heavy materials born out of the outer core of a dying star and hydrogen formed when the universe was starting up in its current from.
They have not been caused to exist.

Unbelievable. I've never seen anyone so biased as to propose that they weren't created or caused. Fine. You don't like that terminology. Okay, I'll use other methods to make my point. Does a person, such as yourself, just appear out of thin air, uncaused? I really hope that is a rhetorical question. I would answer no, you, and all other people, were a result of something. I could be mistaken. Maybe you did pop-up out of thin air at some set age. Maybe you were created ex nihilo. If that is the case, then I must concede my argument. This doesn't just go for people, but for things in general. Cows don't pop-up in busy intersections, uncaused (although that would be amusing). Books don't appear on coffee tables, uncaused. So on and so on.

If you're arguing along this avenue, then the only thing that has ever been made to exist is the universe and your first premise and your conclusion mean precisely the same thing. Thus your argument is completely circular.

My argument isn't circular, because I don't rule out, from the start, that an eternal universe is a possibility.

• Quote from Not_Registered:
  "Certainly that is true. I am not closed to this possibility. However, the idea of a steady-state static universe is almost unanimously not accepted in the science community as of today. The widely accepted big bang theory is the consensus within the science community. Because this theory (the big bang theory) shows the universe had a beginning we must rule out the eternal existence of the universe."

Thus your argument is completely circular.
You need to actually have support for the assumption that things can be or must be caused to exist. Matter/Energy is eternal, it cannot be destroyed and it cannot be created.

For support, see the first section of this post. For additional support, reference your common sense, intuition, and other a priori modes of reasoning. Also, the alternative is extremely less plausible than the premise. In disagreeing with the premise I must assume that you believe that things need not have a cause, but that things can appear or pop-up from nothing. Even a child stops believing in magic at some point.

Also, where did you get this notion that energy/matter is eternal. We're all energy/matter and that is all there is? You're beginning to sound pantheistic. In response to this, I must quote you and say, "You need to actually have support for [this] assumption." Our universe is defined by our space-time continuum. The big bang doesn't just assert the beginning of time. It asserts the beginning of our universe, and all the energy/matter it contains as well. There are many ideas concerning QM and how the universe might have existed "before" the big bang (I don't know how our space-time continuum can exist "before" time). But, there is no set theory on QM, that is why it is all unpredictable to us as of right now. Therefore, any talk about the universe in a QM state is strictly speculation.

In addition, your conclusion is your premise, so you don't even give yourself a chance to be circular. You say "Matter/Energy is eternal." And so that's that? You do exactly what many atheist accuse (and rightfully so) theist of doing. Some theist say God created the universe and that is the only option. They don't use proof to back up what they say, or wont listen to anything that might refute it. You are just as worse in saying that "Matter/Energy is eternal." You make a that's that statement. You don't allow scientific proof to enter into the equation (because it shows otherwise) and you'll latch on to anything that backs your preconceived notion, even if it is pure speculation with no empirical data to back it (i.e. pre-big bang, QM-state theories).

So while time existed the universe existed. Therefore the universe has always existed, right?

Wrong. A correct statement would be, "Therefore, the universe has existed for all of time." Did you not read my response, which provided further elucidation on the subject? To say the universe always existed, has two problems: (1) It goes against the belief that the universe had a beginning and (2) it assumes existence isn't possible outside of time. My past response explains in more detail.

• Quote from Not_Registered:
  "It has a beginning. Something that has a beginning, cannot, by definition, be eternal (or always exist). The statement 'for all of time, the universe has existed' is vacuous, in that it says or proves nothing. It’s like me saying, 'For all of my life, I existed.' Yeah, so what? My life defines my existence, so that statement is tautological. It says nothing. Time defines the universe's existence. So to say 'for all of time, the universe has existed' is to make a tautological statement. You can conclude nothing from it. Just as my life defines my existence, time defines the universe's existence. So what? To try and conclude something from this one must presuppose something, namely that existence isn't possible outside of time.
  
  I could say, 'I existed all of my life; therefore, I have always existed.' However, this presupposes that existence isn't possible outside of my life. In the same manner, to say, 'the universe existed all of time; therefore, it has always existed' is to presuppose that existence isn't possible outside of our space-time continuum."

That only works if you can say "for all of time I existed" not "for all my existance I existed."

Wrong. See above section.

You believe that if something exists for all of time then it is eternal. That would be true, if time didn't have a beginning. But, time does have a beginning, as asserted by the big bang theory (a scientific reason). Also, one can use the philosophical reason, given by the KCA, to prove that time cannot extend infinitely into the past (and must have a beginning).

Your definition of eternal, as I see it, would be: Existing for all of time. Having a beginning or end is of no consequence to you, in your definition of eternal. However, the defintion given by dictionary.com (see below) differs.

eternal
adv.

1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.[/*:m:3b2d5]

 

[Asimov]

"The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."


http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang.html

Whatever :-D

There you go, a COSMIC explosion. You emphasise the wrong word, berean.

You see, the funny thing with explosion is that it has different meanings. The meaning you implied "explosions create nothing" which I took meant a "bomb" type of explosion, is not the meaning that cosmic explosion uses.

If a population increases rapidly, we call that an explosion. That type of explosion does create something; more people.

That type of explosion is synonymous with inflation, which is what the Big Bang event was.

 

[bibleberean]

..."the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."


http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang.html

"that hurled matter and in all directions."

I have never witnessed an explosion that created anything.

The big bang theory is about a bang! Every science class I ever attended always started with the premise that the big bang was just that an explosion thus "bang"!

I find that having to explain this to created intelligent life a bit amusing. :

 

[Asimov]

..."the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."


http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang.html

"that hurled matter and in all directions."

Berean, you keep missing the point, you're equating a chemical explosion with the Big Bang. They are totally different.

If it wasn't an expansion of space, where did it hurl the matter/energy into? You need space to hurl things into. Secondly, and explosion has a center. The universe has no center.

The beginning universe was homogenous and isotropical with incredible high density, temperature, and pressure. This expanded with an inflationary period, after which the universe to cooled (relatively speaking), forming the quark-gluon plasma.

Then we have the unbalance of matter-antimatter, which allowed for matter to exist, this clumped together (as viewed by the CMBR) due to gravity....etc.

I have never witnessed an explosion that created anything.

I find that having to explain this to created intelligent life a bit amusing.

[/quote]

Ah...you have never witnessed an explosion that created anything, therefore the Big Bang is false. Great argument, berean. I have never witnessed a God creating, therefore God does not exist.

You should read the rest of the article before you go making stupid statements about "explosions". It says everything I have said, and more.

If you have anything more to add other than your own incredulity, then do so.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education ... rimer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang.html