The Kalam Cosmological Argument

There is no assumption that everything has a cause. Read the OP. It says that that which BEGINS to exist has a cause.

 

Such a cause would violate the very premise that allows one to even contemplate its existence. It converts the "law of causality" to an arbitrary and optional general case... effectively destroying the KCA before it has reached its first conclusion from premises. If one cause can be uncaused, why not two? Why not twenty? Why not twenty million?

If a causeless cause can exist, then why can't the universe itself be that cause? If a causeless cause can exist, then the "Big Bang" can very well have arisen ex nihilo, with no need for any version of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God to light the fuse.

Therein lays the dual core failures of the KCA. It on one hand cannot reach its desired conclusion without explicitly abandoning its stated premises. And on the other hand, even that denial leaves us with no basis for conclusions regarding the character of that arbitrarily inserted cause.

Furthermore, the KCA fully concedes the possibility of an eternal uncreated thing. So at the most basic level it cannot object to the assertion of an eternal uncreated universe since any arguments against it can also be made against god. But the difference is that there are arguments against God that cannot be made against the universe. Such as:

The KCA posits as its "eternal and uncreated thing" a class of entity for which we have no evidence. In contrast, we have rather direct evidence for the class of entity we call the universe.

The KCA posits an "eternal and uncreated thing" that by its mere existence violates several empirically derived laws of nature; specifically all the laws of conservation and the law of causality. An eternal and uncreated universe violates no such laws, allowing them to continue to operate uninterrupted into the infinite past.

 

Make an argument or don't. But linking without comment to a paper that frankly does not appear to support your position can be of very little help to you. It is certainly not an argument.

 

Close.

There is no assumption that everything has a cause. There is a conclusion that everything has a cause. It is an empirically derived axiom for which we have never witnessed an exception.

The qualification that "that which BEGINS to exist has a cause" is ultimately the bald and arbitrary assertion of a class of entity for which we have no evidence. It is necessary to assert such an entity to defend certain particular sectarian beliefs. It is not necessary to assert such an entity to defend an eternal uncreated universe.

This is because the universe is not a "thing" in the same sense as a planet or a person. Those are actual entities, while the universe is not. It is the conceptual label we give to the super-set of all things that are like planets or people; i.e. all the things "that begin to exist." As far as empirical observation allows us any confidence, the set of "things that began to exist" is identical to the set of "things that exist." We have never witnessed any entity that does not satisfy both conditions and thus occupy both sets.

As long as one thing exists, the universe exists as a conceptual label but not as an entity separate and distinct from the entities that compose it. Therefore a conceptual entity such as a universe which has no beginning is perfectly consistent without a need for any new class of actual entity that has no beginning.

 

And the only thing that we think had a beginning is the Universe... so your entire assumption is basically a leap of faith. Or can you provide a different example of something beginning to exist?

 

The law of conservation applies within the universe. It is a physical law. There is no reason to think it applies TO the Universe. In order for that to be the case you would need a set of physical laws which apply OUTSIDE of the Unviverse, which is logically incoherent. The law of causality is a metaphysical law, which applies to every effect, and only to effects. We have independent reasons for thinking that the universe began to exist, such Borde, Vivenkin, and Gouth's theorem. There is no reason to think that the cause of the Universe, which must also be the cause of time, began to exist.

The first premise states: That which begins to exist has a cause. It is tautological with the law of causality.
It does not say that everything has a cause.

 

Everything in the Universe.

 

I'm sorry. I assumed you would already know about that. In 1970 Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose developed a singularity theorem which proved that the Universe developed a singularity theorem which proved that the Sacetime must have had an absolute beginning as long as certain Weak Energy conditions were not violated. There is a slight chance that those conditions could be violated. In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin developed the theorem I linked you to, which shows any universe with an average Hubble expansion rate greater than zero must have an absolute beginning. It applies to any model you can dream up, including oscillating models and a multiverse.

 

Which is the Universe. So, we have one example of something coming into existence, and you want to apply an assumption that everything that exists has a cause...when we only have one and only one example of it. That isn't going to fly. You have to show that everything that comes into existence must have a cause, and since you only have one example of something coming into existence and we don't KNOW if there is a cause...well... good luck.

 

The reason the fallacy of composition is fallacious is because it defies the law of identity. You are not the Universe. The Universe is not you.

I don't have to prove an irrefutable metaphysical principal. You can reject it, if you like. But you can't do so rationally.

 

I completely disagree, everything in this universe is composed of the same atoms that came from the Big Bang, so yes, I AM a part of this Universe. What do you think the Universe is?

 

By definition, there is no such thing as "outside" the universe.

Nothing applies "to" the universe. The universe is not a "thing." It is the conceptual category of all things that exist. So the rest of your discussion regarding a set of physical laws that "apply OUTSIDE of the Universe" is a red herring unworthy of consideration.

There is nothing particularly metaphysical about it at all. It is an empirically derived physical law. Further, all causes are also effects, without exception. At least (again) this is what the empirical evidence demonstrates.

If you are aware of an exception, please... show us.

You are equivocating. It is an honest mistake, as it derives from the same mechanism by which John Dalton innocently mislabeled the atom. You are applying the term "universe" to only the particular observable "space" within we currently exist. Certainly, a frog can be forgiven for mistaking their pond as the entire universe.

There are no independent reasons for thinking that the universe began to exist, there are only independent reasons for positing a point of transition at which our observable universe became as it is now. Let's consider the "Big Bang Singularity" for example. It is a point on a line... a cusp between the observable universe that exists today with whatever it was that came before. Any contention that it actually is a point at which "the universe began" simply and comprehensively violates every known empirical law of nature. It is so contrary to everything we know that even theists viscerally understand this fact, using it as the opportunity to arbitrarily assert God.

Again... if you are conceding that causeless causes can exist, then you have just eliminated from your own argument any need to posit a God at all. The universe can (under that concession) itself be uncaused. It could just as easily have sprung into existence uncaused a mere five minutes ago with even our own memories of false history spontaneously arising ex nihilo.

Either everything has a cause, or nothing requires one. Once you assert that the "law" of causality is merely a general rule, you have pretty much destroyed any logical foundation for the KCA at all.

 

Ergo... the Universe is already completely consistent with this premise. No need to posit a new class of entity for which we have no evidence.

 

First and foremost, it's kind of funny that you would imagine that their work "proved" anything. Neither of them would be so bold as to make so arrogant an assertion. They have proffered one of several competing theories with which to explain this particular instance of observable universe.

Secondly, did you fail to note that the Vilenkin paper is careful to assert not a "beginning" but a "boundary?" They even speculate regarding what exists on the other side.

But lastly... you are whistling past the graveyard of the fact that what they describe rather explicitly violates your premise that everything with a beginning must be caused. It is a coherent description of an uncaused universe. Once again you are left with the problem that any insertion of "God" is both superfluous and arbitrary.

How do you imagine that is congenial to your theism?

 

Excuse me? That comment borders on self parody.

The rejection of any metaphysical principal which was arbitrarily asserted in the first place is elegantly rational.

 

LOL

We now understand that the Material universe had to abide the Law of Conservation of Energy, hence itmaterialized from some source of Energy which as energy is wont to do, transcends both time and requires no Space to occupy since it is massless.






Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,... in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2), the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth.


The Formative - Hadean Era/ First Day: From The Big Bang to 4.5 Years Ago



The Early Universe originated with the expansion of an unbelievably hot and dense "something;" hotter than the tens of millions of Kelvins in the cores of most stars, denser than the trillions of grams per cubic centimeter in the nucleus of any atom.

Precisely what that state was, we cannot say for sure. And why it "exploded," we really don't know.

At best, science contends that in the beginning a singularity released an outward burst of pure, radiant energy.

Why the Universe suddenly began expanding more than 10 billion years ago is a most intractable query, so formidable that scientists are currently unaware even how to formulate a meaningful question about it.

 

We're talking about the law of causality. I just refer you back to your own defenses of it, other than where you thought it was a physical law. But now I've corrected you on that, so you're good to go.

 

There are no such things as metaphysical laws. So what else could it be?

Metaphysics is frankly a very dumb waste of human attention. It belongs nowhere near any discussion that also includes words like, "Verifiable," "evidence," "reason" or "truth."

 

It's not a theory. It's a theorem.

Theorems don't have any competition.
Alex Vilenkin believes in a multiverse, to which his theorem also applies, which is why the position of God as the, still required, first cause is not superfluous. I don't see how you get the idea that they describe an uncaused universe.

 

I have a big problem with #4. If you say that cause is something I call god which is very different from what religious people call god, I would be OK with it. If god is just another word for what caused the universe - big bang or whatever - then the statement is OK. the way it is stated is illogical.

Current scientific thinking is that the universe was not always there but began roughly 14 billion years ago. They have observations and measurements to come to this conclusion. While not so universally accepted, some scientists believe that there are all kinds of universes and many big bangs occurred. One reason for this is that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. One would think the expansion would be slowing as gravity affects the various objects in the universe. So some think there are other universes exerting a gravitation attraction on ours. It's a possibility. These things are still mysteries. They're working on it but not there yet.

While it is logical to conclude that there is a first cause, there is no reason believe that the first cause is anything other than the laws of physics and nature and not some anthropomorphic being with a plan for every member of the human race.

 

The laws of logic are metaphysical. Truth is metaphysical. All abstractions are metaphysical. If you believe that abstractions, laws of logic, truth exist, but do not believe they are metaphysical, then I'll use another word, so as to not offend your delicate sensibilities. If you do not believe they exist, then we can't have a rational discussion.

 

No, they are not. They are reflections of an independent and preexisting physical reality.

No, it is not. It is a reflection of an independent and preexisting physical reality.

No. They are not. They are reflections of an independent and preexisting physical reality.

"Mind" is what "brain" does.

I don't care what words you use as long as you stop trying to pretend that you have made some point merely by their use. To this point you have only used the word "metaphysical" in an act of verbal legerdemain trying to escape from applying the law of causality to the universe. It was both transparent and illegitimate.

Nothing is metaphysical. Everything is a product of an independent and preexisting reality... even our imagination of things that do not exist within it.

I'm not the one who called them "metaphysical." So of the two of us, I am the less likely to consider them nonexistent.

 

They are not mutually exclusive.

Of course they do.

I'm sure he believes in many things. He's a very smart guy. Here is what he has to say specifically on this issue:

Arguments from authority are dangerous for many reasons. Especially when as in your case, you don't even understand the authority.

I read the paper. I didn't just copy it from Craig's web page and hope for the best.

 

So you agree that the laws of logic exist. Good.
I do apply the law of causality to the Universe. Read that post again. It is the laws of physics that I refuse to apply outside of the Universe, such as the law of conservation. If you want to apply the law of conservation to the Universe, you should also apply the second law of thermodynamics to it which negates the possibility of an eternal Universe.

So, what word would you like me to use to describe what I have been describing as metaphysical?

Definition of METAPHYSICAL
1
: of or relating to metaphysics
2
a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural
3
: highly abstract or abstruse; also : theoretical

 

By definition, there is no "outside of the Universe." So once again you make a point that is excruciatingly pointless.

As to the second law of thermodynamics, it does no such thing. The law states that in a closed system, entropy tends to increase. And of course this is true... but then you must consider what entropy is. Entropy is an extensive physical property that has the dimension of energy divided by a temperature. IIRC, the units are J/K (joules per kelvin).

Let's revisit the "Big Bang singularity" for a moment. It was entirely dimensionless, rendering it also infinitely dense, and of an infinitely high temperature. What happens when you take entropy... any entropy of any origin or amount... and raise the denominator to infinity? What is any number divided by infinity?

Zero.

So the passage of the universe or any part of it through a singularity must perforce reset entropy to zero. You will note, I hope, that 2nd Law of Thermo does not require conservation.

The right word. For example, the law of causality is a physical law, not a metaphysical law. That would be a great start.

But if you cannot constrain yourself to an argument based on evidence and reason, just say so.