Calling all atheists and agnostics (and anyone else for that matter). What are your most serious contentions with the Kalam Cosmological argument, i.e.:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist (demonstrated either via the impossibility of an infinite past or scientific evidence)
3. Therefore the universe began to exist
What is your major objection? Do you think QM disproves (1)? Or do you think that an infinite past is possible, thereby disproving (2)? Or do you think we can't get to God from reasonable arguments stemming from the conclusion?
Thanks in advance for your input
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Moderator: Moderators
Post #71
Hi again NoisForm,
My apologies if I misunderstood you. Let me get your original quotes:
My overall point then was that such conditions (which I would call necessary causes, hence the original scare quotes - not meant to offend) are of no threat to the argument, if you restate the first premise as:
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause or condition
So my original point was that it doesn't matter what you call them i.e. causes or conditions, as long as they are necessary for an event or a state of affairs to be, then they are of no threat to the argument.
* if "in the next few minutes" is not sufficiently "here and now" for you, you could also say that a condition for your existence here and now is dependent on the molecular bonds between atoms in your body. If they instantaneously ceased to be active, so would you.
My apologies if I misunderstood you. Let me get your original quotes:
My point is that oxygen is not just a causally disconnected condition from your continued existence, here and now. Rather, it is a causally connected necessary condition for your continued existence in the next few minutes. The examples that you gave, i.e. eating breakfast this morning, are not necessary conditions for your existence here and now, so there is clearly a differentiation between conditions (as there are between different causes)*.This is key I think. First, oxygen would not be either a necessary or a sufficient cause for my existence, but rather a necessary condition. Specifically, consider you're use of 'continuing' existence. We aren't speaking of the continuing existence of me, but rather the initial cause of my existence. These are quite different things.
The cause of my existence occurred once and only once, and is not some ongoing string of events. The conditions of my continued existence includes the presence of oxygen. The cause of my existence involved the fertilization of an egg.
My overall point then was that such conditions (which I would call necessary causes, hence the original scare quotes - not meant to offend) are of no threat to the argument, if you restate the first premise as:
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause or condition
So my original point was that it doesn't matter what you call them i.e. causes or conditions, as long as they are necessary for an event or a state of affairs to be, then they are of no threat to the argument.
* if "in the next few minutes" is not sufficiently "here and now" for you, you could also say that a condition for your existence here and now is dependent on the molecular bonds between atoms in your body. If they instantaneously ceased to be active, so would you.
Post #73
To begin, some think is hardly an argument, I'm sure you would agree? But let's go ahead and stipulate that some think that. They would be wrong. Interesting use of the word objects on your part, but I think it's misplaced. Maths are abstract concepts, i.e. they exist soley in our brain. They are not 'things' that exist independent of mind.AndyT_81 wrote: Some in philosophy think of abstract objects (like say, mathematical truths) are eternal and therefore do not begin to exist. So yes, there are other things that are part of this set. ...
(do try and imagine the simplest of mathematical truths, say 1+1=2, not only without a mind to think it, but without any referents available for the symbols 1, 2, + or = to represent. After all, if these maths somehow existed eternally, that would mean that they 'predate' space-time itself. No space, no objects(referents), no measurement, nothing relative or comparative...certainly no math.)
So, have you any examples of existing things that did not begin to exist?
Oh no, I didn't mean that it literally includes god, obviously. It is the setup, as it were - the next step requires that you set it up in this way. The notion of god is implicit. If you didn't know in advance that you were about to define god in precisely that way (as not having begun to exist), then why would one make that distinction at the outset? Why not begin the argument with; "1. Everything that exists has a cause."? Obviously, it is because you are about to define god as a thing that did not begin to exist. This is entirely circular.AndyT_81 wrote:...(1) could be true without actually invoking the notion of God - it could be the case that for all existing things, they began to exist. In other words, an infinite regress. If this is the case, then (1) does not necessarily include the concept of God as you claim.
Dan Barker tells it better than I;
"The curious clause “everything that begins to exist� implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause� is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.� As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question."
Post #74
I don't get your objection, the argument might as well run as (1) Everything except an eternal entity (call it God if you will) has a cause/condition for its existence (2) Universe is not an eternal entity (3) universe has a cause for its existence. It still looks valid to me, not circular or question begging at all.NoisForm wrote:To begin, some think is hardly an argument, I'm sure you would agree? But let's go ahead and stipulate that some think that. They would be wrong. Interesting use of the word objects on your part, but I think it's misplaced. Maths are abstract concepts, i.e. they exist soley in our brain. They are not 'things' that exist independent of mind.AndyT_81 wrote: Some in philosophy think of abstract objects (like say, mathematical truths) are eternal and therefore do not begin to exist. So yes, there are other things that are part of this set. ...
(do try and imagine the simplest of mathematical truths, say 1+1=2, not only without a mind to think it, but without any referents available for the symbols 1, 2, + or = to represent. After all, if these maths somehow existed eternally, that would mean that they 'predate' space-time itself. No space, no objects(referents), no measurement, nothing relative or comparative...certainly no math.)
So, have you any examples of existing things that did not begin to exist?
Oh no, I didn't mean that it literally includes god, obviously. It is the setup, as it were - the next step requires that you set it up in this way. The notion of god is implicit. If you didn't know in advance that you were about to define god in precisely that way (as not having begun to exist), then why would one make that distinction at the outset? Why not begin the argument with; "1. Everything that exists has a cause."? Obviously, it is because you are about to define god as a thing that did not begin to exist. This is entirely circular.AndyT_81 wrote:...(1) could be true without actually invoking the notion of God - it could be the case that for all existing things, they began to exist. In other words, an infinite regress. If this is the case, then (1) does not necessarily include the concept of God as you claim.
Dan Barker tells it better than I;
"The curious clause “everything that begins to exist� implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause� is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.� As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question."
In any case your objection fails because 'everything except God' doesn't necessarily equate everything that begins to exist, even if we cannot presently show other such entities. Furthermore, God is not even included in the conclusion of the argument.
Post #76
AndyT_81 wrote: Hi Artie,
Maybe we have just lost ourselves in details. Isn't it just simpler to say that "1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause" applies to the conditions inside our universe so the argument is actually self refuting? It requires the same conditions that originated with our universe to exist without the existence of our universe.That isn't the point of what I said. First you have a cause and then an effect and for one to come first and the second to come after you have to have time. But time is a function of this universe so you are left with only two options:No, I don't just think the first premise would only apply within our universe (assuming there are others) - the argument for its truth is not based on induction. Rather it is a broad metaphysical claim - things do not come into being completely causally disconnected from any thing. Or in other words, from nothing, nothing comes.
1. The universe couldn't have begun to exist because there was no time in which you could go from "no universe" to "our universe".
2. We simply inherited time from an earlier universe. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... erse-.html
Isn't the phrase "begins to exist" meaningless in itself? Either
1. It "begins to exist" from nothing or
2. It is a rearrangement of something already existing?Which would be the same as "from nothing".I don't think that exhausts the possibilities (though I don't think (1) is actually a possibility). I would add 3. Is brought into being without the use of any pre-existing material.
Post #77
Sure, perhaps you could answer my question though. How does rephrasing the first premise make the argument circular or question begging? (1) Everything except an eternal being has a cause/condition for it's existence (2) Universe is not an eternal being (3) Universe has a cause for its existence.
This is completely valid, what's your objection? Are you not happy that the argument, valid as it is, is specifically designed to prove God?
Usually I tend to find Dan Barker brilliant at this topic, but this objection doesn't seem very successful.
Post #78
I don't see why cause and effect couldn't happen simultaneously.Artie wrote: But time is a function of this universe so you are left with only two options:
1. The universe couldn't have begun to exist because there was no time in which you could go from "no universe" to "our universe".
If the second premise is sound, then there cannot be an infinite regress of universes in physical time. So, perhaps we should discuss the arguments for the second premise.Artie wrote: 2. We simply inherited time from an earlier universe. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... erse-.html
Post #79
I don't really have much to add to what instantc has said, apart from the following small note to NoisForm. An atheist could very well accept the Kalam Cosmological argument to show that the universe began to exist - they could just disagree with the reasoning that attempts to show the cause in (3) is God. Therefore, if it is a circular argument as you claim, it isn't a very good one
Post #80
Ah, perhaps I see the confusion. You are correct that the three points as they stand have been almost trivially true (not withstanding possible complications with QM, which I'm not qualified to debate), and I have no particular objection to the argument as it stands, that is, if it stands alone. I should have been clearer about this.instantc wrote: Are you not happy that the argument, valid as it is, is specifically designed to prove God?
You are right to point out that it is specifically designed to prove a god, and this is actually where the problems arise. You see, this isn't the whole argument...ever. It is only the framework which is almost universally followed by the 'proofs' for a deity.
*On W. Craig's site, that is made quite clear. No editing on my part, the god talk immediately follows the three part argument, so as no one is unclear as to why it's being proposed;
"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Conceptual analysis of what it is to be cause of the universe will recover several of the principal attributes of God, so that the cause takes on the character of a personal Creator of the universe."
It is at that point that we discover why the care was taken when phrasing 'things that begin to exist have a cause', rather than simply 'things that exist have a cause'. They are defining into existence in advance (i.e., in the premise) that which they wish to prove in the conclusion (a god). As the earlier link mentioned;
"...the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is equivalent to "everything except God has a cause." As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God's existence,..."
Why can we later presume that this deity is an uncaused thing? Where does such a notion come from? Well, because we defined it as such in the premise, remember? Voila! Circular nonsense. Any and all objections such as 'but then what created god?', are summarily dismissed with a chuckle because the person asking 'just doesn't get how god works'. That is, they didn't see that we already defined it as causeless in the premise. You see there is no reason for the 'first cause' (a god) to be exempt from causation, aside from merely defining god in this way. This argument reads, roughly, 'because we said so'.
Baker's full treatment of this is a far better source than I though, I still recommend a reading. He discusses at least two other major objections to the argument as well, I just happened to know of this one at the time and found it convincing.
*edit to add the Craig's quote section
