The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[AndyT_81]

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

[Goat]

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

Please clarify

What do you mean by 'begins to exist'?? Change form, or 'out of nothing'

The second law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed.. therefore it has 'always' existed in one form or another.

[AndyT_81]

[Replying to Goat]

Hi Goat,

I mean come into being. The second law of thermodynamics is an inductive law based on what we have observed about matter in this universe. It says nothing about how matter/energy could come to be.

Would your objection to the argument then be that the singularity of the big bang was the nucleation of a single universe in a multi-verse (i.e. energy just changing form)? What would you think about the BVG (Borde, Vilenkin, Guth) proof that shows that any expanding inflationary scenario (which basically all current multiverse theories are) still require a beginning? Or, what is your view on the impossibility of the infinite past arguments that Craig and others have argued (I can reproduce them here if needed).

Look forward to your further thoughts.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]

Hi Goat,

I mean come into being. The second law of thermodynamics is an inductive law based on what we have observed about matter in this universe. It says nothing about how matter/energy could come to be.

Would your objection to the argument then be that the singularity of the big bang was the nucleation of a single universe in a multi-verse (i.e. energy just changing form)? What would you think about the BVG (Borde, Vilenkin, Guth) proof that shows that any expanding inflationary scenario (which basically all current multiverse theories are) still require a beginning? Or, what is your view on the impossibility of the infinite past arguments that Craig and others have argued (I can reproduce them here if needed).

Look forward to your further thoughts.

Well, then we got a problem with your formation. Evertyhing that I Know on the macro level is that 'begins to exist' merely is the reformation of existing material/energy. While those items 'have a cause', I don't see why that should carry over to 'out of nothing'.

The items I know of in QM, .. quantum fluctuations./virtual particles .. have no cause. Given what we know about the quantum state, and 'something from nothing', I see no reasons to assume that 'anything that beings to exist has a cause' is true.

[AndyT_81]

Hi Goat,

I don't think everyday experience is necessarily a good indicator of what goes on at the beginning of the universe though. The first premise, that whatever begins to exist has a cause, is not based on an inductive argument - rather it is based on the metaphysical idea that something cannot come from nothing. If something began to exist without a cause, even if other things existed prior to it, it would literally come from nothing; nothing produced it, nothing can explain it - no existing laws, particles, fields, nothing. It would be completely unintelligible, and it would be completely ad hoc to assume anything had a cause if you assume that things can come into being with no cause whatsoever.

To say that virtual particles in QM have no cause is not quite right - it appears that they have no efficient cause, but they certainly have a formal cause. In quantum field theory they are described as excitations of the various fields. So if we assume there is actually something out there in reality which quantum field theory points to and describes, the cause of the virtual particles is the formal properties of the field. Think about it - if there were no fields (or whatever it is that behaves like fields as described in the theory) or they were incapable of such excitations, there would be no virtual particles, so they definitely don't come out of nothing.

What do you think?

[Divine Insight]

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?

My first concern would be to ask for a better definition of "The Universe".

What are you calling "The Universe". Would this be "All that exists", or just the physical phenomenon that can be associated with our current theories of spacetime?

Do you think QM disproves (1)?

I think that QM does indeed bring into question whether or not its actually necessarily for all things to have a 'beginning'. It is quite possible that time may not be entropic or linear in the quantum domain. If this is true then speaking of concepts like "before or after" would be meaningless.

So yes, I do believe that QM does indeed suggest that this is the situation.

Thus rending the intuitive assumptions of #1 to be without foundation. Especially in terms of our intuitive notion of entropic time.

Or do you think that an infinite past is possible, thereby disproving (2)?

It is my view that as long as we cling to our intuitive idea of entropic time (time that has clear cut past and future), then there needs to be an infinite past in any case.

In other words, to propose the idea that an eternal God has always existed is really the same as proposing the time stretches on infinitely in to the past nonstop.

What's the difference between and infinite past and an eternal past?

You'd need to clarify the difference here before we could make any progress on that notion.

Or do you think we can't get to God from reasonable arguments stemming from the conclusion?

You'd need to define what you mean by "God".

I don't see where these kinds of arguments would even remotely imply the existence of a God.

Are you saying that we need to believe in a "God" in order to believe in the potential of non-entropic time? Or even in an infinite regression of time or an eternity?

Why?

Why do these things demand the existence of a "God"?

What they might suggest is that whatever we are (i.e. whatever this universe is) may be eternal too.

In this case then we are this eternal "God" currently being manifest as a universe.

So it seems to me that any reasoning along these lines that would lead someone to believe in a "God" would also necessarily lead them to the conclusion that we are this "God".

So this would point to the mystical pantheistic view of a "God". And certainly not to the views of the mythological Gods as portrayed in Greek or Hebrew mythologies.

I personally do already favor the mystical view of "God" and for this reason I accept the Sanskrit saying, "Tat T'vam Asi" , meaning "You are That".

If there is a "God" we are it.

That's my conclusion.

[Goat]

Hi Goat,

I don't think everyday experience is necessarily a good indicator of what goes on at the beginning of the universe though. The first premise, that whatever begins to exist has a cause, is not based on an inductive argument - rather it is based on the metaphysical idea that something cannot come from nothing. If something began to exist without a cause, even if other things existed prior to it, it would literally come from nothing; nothing produced it, nothing can explain it - no existing laws, particles, fields, nothing. It would be completely unintelligible, and it would be completely ad hoc to assume anything had a cause if you assume that things can come into being with no cause whatsoever.

To say that virtual particles in QM have no cause is not quite right - it appears that they have no efficient cause, but they certainly have a formal cause. In quantum field theory they are described as excitations of the various fields. So if we assume there is actually something out there in reality which quantum field theory points to and describes, the cause of the virtual particles is the formal properties of the field. Think about it - if there were no fields (or whatever it is that behaves like fields as described in the theory) or they were incapable of such excitations, there would be no virtual particles, so they definitely don't come out of nothing.

What do you think?

The thing is you can't show they DO have a cause. I know there is the idea of 'hidden variables', but.. you can't show that do.

So, since you can not show your first premise is correct, I can't accept it.

[Ooberman]

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

All of those are good objections.

[AndyT_81]

Hi Divine Insight,

Thanks for your comprehensive response.

What are you calling "The Universe". Would this be "All that exists", or just the physical phenomenon that can be associated with our current theories of spacetime?

Let's say all that exists, at least in part, within space-time (whether that includes just this physical universe, or a multi-verse).

I think that QM does indeed bring into question whether or not its actually necessarily for all things to have a 'beginning'. It is quite possible that time may not be entropic or linear in the quantum domain. If this is true then speaking of concepts like "before or after" would be meaningless.

So yes, I do believe that QM does indeed suggest that this is the situation.

Would you be able to point me in the direction of the science on this? Or expand how you think this violates the first premise? I don't like to base my views of this argument on what is merely possible, but rather what science is currently telling us. Say we have an electron that we observe from our entropic perspective to come into existence at a certain time due to a certain cause - how is that violated by what you are suggesting?

It is my view that as long as we cling to our intuitive idea of entropic time (time that has clear cut past and future), then there needs to be an infinite past in any case.

In other words, to propose the idea that an eternal God has always existed is really the same as proposing the time stretches on infinitely in to the past nonstop.

What's the difference between and infinite past and an eternal past?

You'd need to clarify the difference here before we could make any progress on that notion.

The eternity of God is not equal to infinite time - rather it is an eternal present, which is co-present with all instants of time (in all possible reference frames). At least that is the traditional view ever since Boethius

You'd need to define what you mean by "God".

I don't see where these kinds of arguments would even remotely imply the existence of a God.

Are you saying that we need to believe in a "God" in order to believe in the potential of non-entropic time? Or even in an infinite regression of time or an eternity?

Why?

Why do these things demand the existence of a "God"?

It would be the conclusion of the argument that whatever creates the universe is necessarily immaterial and eternal (outside of time, not within it in an infinite extent), because if it wasn't it wouldn't be the conclusion of the argument. It would at the very least be very powerful to create the universe. This starts pointing in the direction of a God-like figure, but some more arguments are needed to show that such a being has an intellect. Probably should leave them until later.

[AndyT_81]

Hi Goat,

The thing is you can't show they DO have a cause. I know there is the idea of 'hidden variables', but.. you can't show that do.

So, since you can not show your first premise is correct, I can't accept it.

Ok, but what did you think of my formal cause argument - at the very least there is a formal cause. If you disagree, tell me how there could be virtual particles if there were no QM fields? Or if the fields in question behaved classically instead of quantum mechanically? Virtual particles, if they lack an efficient cause (which isn't guaranteed) would still have a formal cause, as their existence depends on the formal properties of the QM fields (or whatever the theory describes in reality).