Kalam cosmological argument analysis

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Waiting4evidence
Sage
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:52 am

Kalam cosmological argument analysis

Post #1

Post by Waiting4evidence »

This is Kalam's cosmological argument, as presented in its modern form by William Lane Craig:

1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) The universe has a cause
4) The cause of the universe is God

I have a very simple question:

Is it POSSIBLE or is it IMPOSSIBLE for any imaginable or unimaginable, conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entity of any kind to exist without having begun to exist?

This is a true dichotomy. Let's plug both options into the original syllogism.

If it's IMPOSSIBLE for any entity to exist without having begun to exist (if, in other words, everything which exists must of necessity have begun to exist), then the entity which caused the universe to begin existing, must have begun existing also, because it's IMPOSSIBLE for any entity to exist without having begun to exist.

If the entity that caused the universe to exist, also began to exist, then - as per premise 1 - the entity that caused the universe to begin existing, WAS CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE.

What caused God to begin existing?


On the other hand...

If it is POSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist (like for example an eternal God), then the fact that something exists doesn't of necessity mean that it must have begun to exist. Thus, the fact that the universe exists doesn't of necessity mean that the universe began to exist. Thus premise 2 is not necessarily true. We have NOT observed the universe to begin existing, we do NOT understand the singularity, and are unable to probe further in the past than the few seconds AFTER the Big Bang. Thus the notion that the universe began to exist is SPECULATIVE, not FACTUAL.

Therefore, if it's possible for something to exist without having began to exist, and it is therefore possible for the universe to exist without having begun to exist, and if only that which began to exist must of necessity have been caused by something, then the universe was not necessarily caused.



My entire argument in short form:
Is it possible for an entity to exist without having begun to exist?
If it is not possible, then the entity that caused the universe must have begun to exist, and thus must have been caused.
If it is possible, then premise 2 is not necessarily true, and thus conclusion 3 is not true.

Thoughts?

(Please, no arguments based on special pleading)
Last edited by Waiting4evidence on Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Waiting4evidence
Sage
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:52 am

Post #11

Post by Waiting4evidence »

kayky wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote: BZZZZZZZ. WRONG.

I do NOT imply physicality by using the word "entity".

I write: " any imaginable or unimaginable, conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entity of any kind"

I am NOT implying physicality.

To say that "conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entities" is implying that entities are all physical, is like saying that "red apples, yellow apples, green apples" implies that all apples are red.

I assume you retract that portion of your comment, and agree to read my posts more carefully in the future.
Okay. I reread the OP, and you did allow for nonphysicality. Try not to go all postal on me.
Ok, cool. So you are saying that it IS possible for some kind of spiritual/transcendental/abstract entity to exist without having begun to exist, because the concept of time and space - on which the idea of "beginning" is predicated - can be meaningless in some situations such as the spiritual realm.

You know where else the concept of space and time are meaningless? In a singularity. You know what the big bang is? A singularity.

You yourself said that in a context where space and time are meaningless, then things can be without beginnings or endings.

There is no regular space and time in a singularity such as the Big Bang, thus the Big bang has no space and time, thus no beginning, thus no cause. Therefore God doesn't necessarily exist.

Right?
Saying that God is "unnecessary" does not prove the nonexistence of God, as I'm sure you are well aware.
Agreed. It just demolishes a logical argument which attempts to prove that he is necessary.

All other philosophical and metaphysical considerations aside, do you agree that Kalam's Cosmological argument is invalid?

Waiting4evidence
Sage
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:52 am

Re: Kalam cosmological argument analysis

Post #12

Post by Waiting4evidence »

Ionian_Tradition wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote:

On the other hand...

If it is POSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist (like for example an eternal God), then the fact that something exists doesn't of necessity mean that it must have begun to exist. Thus, the fact that the universe exists doesn't of necessity mean that the universe began to exist. Thus premise 2 is not necessarily true. We have NOT observed the universe to begin existing, we do NOT understand the singularity, and are unable to probe further in the past than the few seconds AFTER the Big Bang. Thus the notion that the universe began to exist is SPECULATIVE, not FACTUAL.

Therefore, if it's possible for something to exist without having began to exist, and it is therefore possible for the universe to exist without having begun to exist, and if only that which began to exist must of necessity have been caused by something, then the universe was not necessarily caused.



My entire argument in short form:
Is it possible for an entity to exist without having begun to exist?
If it is not possible, then the entity that caused the universe must have begun to exist, and thus must have been caused.
If it is possible, then premise 2 is not necessarily true, and thus conclusion 3 is not true.

Thoughts?

(Please, no arguments based on special pleading)

I believe the apologist might be inclined to respond by calling attention to the potentially unsettling implications of an eternally existing universe, namely the problem of entropy and infinite regress, as a means of arguing that the universe must have had a beginning.
I believe the counter-apologist might be inclined to respond by calling attention to the potentially unsettling implications of an eternally existing GOD, namely the problem of entropy and infinite regress, as a means of arguing that GOD must have had a beginning.

See what I did? Whatever problems one may point to with the notion of an eternal universe can be used to punch holes into the notion of an eternal God.
Ionian_Tradition wrote:Entropy implies the universe must become increasingly disordered over time. If the universe is infinitely old, our presently ordered universe should not exist because there would have been an infinite amount of time for the universe to become disordered prior to the present moment.
That is only a valid argument if one assumes that entropy always increases. There could be an eternal back and forth between an expanding universe with increasing entropy, then falling back onto itself under its own gravitational force and reducing back to a singularity in a process of decrease in entropy.
Ionian_Tradition wrote:A universe existing eternally in time implies and infinite number of moments which would necessarily precede the present, which would have prevented the present moment from ever arriving in the first place....Provided we grant an "A-theory" of time of course.
Well, yeah, general relativity destroys the notion of linear time on which this entire hypothesis is predicated. We know that gravitational fields warp time and slow it down. Time at a singularity would literally STOP. Thus, while eternity would seem to have passed from the standpoint of an external observer, no time at all would have elapsed as measured from within the singularity. In other words, at the singularity (which is what the entity existing at the Big Bang was) eternity= zero time. It's not just space, but also time that was compressed at the big bang.

The notion of "infinite number of instants in the past" is simply outdated and flawed.

Imagine you thought the world was flat. It would make perfect sense to you to claim "The earth either has an edge or it continues in all directions for an infinite amount of space".

The fact that the earth is a globe makes your assertion meaningless.

Similarly, if you thought that time is linear, you might make the statement "Something must either have had a beginning or existed forever".

The fact that time is not linear but warped by gravitational fields makes that assertion meaningless.

User avatar
Ionian_Tradition
Sage
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:46 pm
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Kalam cosmological argument analysis

Post #13

Post by Ionian_Tradition »

Waiting4evidence wrote:
Ionian_Tradition wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote:

On the other hand...

If it is POSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist (like for example an eternal God), then the fact that something exists doesn't of necessity mean that it must have begun to exist. Thus, the fact that the universe exists doesn't of necessity mean that the universe began to exist. Thus premise 2 is not necessarily true. We have NOT observed the universe to begin existing, we do NOT understand the singularity, and are unable to probe further in the past than the few seconds AFTER the Big Bang. Thus the notion that the universe began to exist is SPECULATIVE, not FACTUAL.

Therefore, if it's possible for something to exist without having began to exist, and it is therefore possible for the universe to exist without having begun to exist, and if only that which began to exist must of necessity have been caused by something, then the universe was not necessarily caused.



My entire argument in short form:
Is it possible for an entity to exist without having begun to exist?
If it is not possible, then the entity that caused the universe must have begun to exist, and thus must have been caused.
If it is possible, then premise 2 is not necessarily true, and thus conclusion 3 is not true.

Thoughts?

(Please, no arguments based on special pleading)

I believe the apologist might be inclined to respond by calling attention to the potentially unsettling implications of an eternally existing universe, namely the problem of entropy and infinite regress, as a means of arguing that the universe must have had a beginning.
I believe the counter-apologist might be inclined to respond by calling attention to the potentially unsettling implications of an eternally existing GOD, namely the problem of entropy and infinite regress, as a means of arguing that GOD must have had a beginning.

See what I did? Whatever problems one may point to with the notion of an eternal universe can be used to punch holes into the notion of an eternal God.
How exactly does the problem of entropy apply to a immaterial entity? How does time apply to a timeless entity? The correlation escapes me.
Waiting4evidence wrote:
Ionian_Tradition wrote:Entropy implies the universe must become increasingly disordered over time. If the universe is infinitely old, our presently ordered universe should not exist because there would have been an infinite amount of time for the universe to become disordered prior to the present moment.
That is only a valid argument if one assumes that entropy always increases. There could be an eternal back and forth between an expanding universe with increasing entropy, then falling back onto itself under its own gravitational force and reducing back to a singularity in a process of decrease in entropy.
Then you face the problem of an infinite number of oscillation events which would precede the universe we inhabit today, thus preventing our present universe from ever forming.
Waiting4evidence wrote:
Ionian_Tradition wrote:A universe existing eternally in time implies and infinite number of moments which would necessarily precede the present, which would have prevented the present moment from ever arriving in the first place....Provided we grant an "A-theory" of time of course.
Well, yeah, general relativity destroys the notion of linear time on which this entire hypothesis is predicated. We know that gravitational fields warp time and slow it down. Time at a singularity would literally STOP. Thus, while eternity would seem to have passed from the standpoint of an external observer, no time at all would have elapsed as measured from within the singularity. In other words, at the singularity (which is what the entity existing at the Big Bang was) eternity= zero time. It's not just space, but also time that was compressed at the big bang.
If time stopped within a singularity then what, would you say, caused the universe to begin expanding? Everything which begins has a cause, or so the argument goes, yet causation is a finite event which is measurable by time. Finite causal events cannot occur when time is static. How then could time have started from a static state if any causal event preceding it could only have occurred within elapsing time?
Waiting4evidence wrote: The notion of "infinite number of instants in the past" is simply outdated and flawed.

Imagine you thought the world was flat. It would make perfect sense to you to claim "The earth either has an edge or it continues in all directions for an infinite amount of space".

The fact that the earth is a globe makes your assertion meaningless.

Similarly, if you thought that time is linear, you might make the statement "Something must either have had a beginning or existed forever".

The fact that time is not linear but warped by gravitational fields makes that assertion meaningless.
Can you explain how warped time escapes the problem I've stated above?

User avatar
kayky
Prodigy
Posts: 4695
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:23 pm
Location: Kentucky

Post #14

Post by kayky »

Waiting4evidence wrote:
Agreed. It just demolishes a logical argument which attempts to prove that he is necessary.

All other philosophical and metaphysical considerations aside, do you agree that Kalam's Cosmological argument is invalid?
I cannot say one way or the other. The Big Bang started from a singularity outside of time and space? What changed to bring about the universe that obviously is subject to the laws of time and space?

Waiting4evidence
Sage
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:52 am

Post #15

Post by Waiting4evidence »

kayky wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote:
Agreed. It just demolishes a logical argument which attempts to prove that he is necessary.

All other philosophical and metaphysical considerations aside, do you agree that Kalam's Cosmological argument is invalid?
I cannot say one way or the other. The Big Bang started from a singularity outside of time and space? What changed to bring about the universe that obviously is subject to the laws of time and space?
A singularity IS subject to the laws of time and space. Time and space, to the best of our understanding, behave according to theory at a singularity.

It's not like there is a transition from no-laws-apply, to laws-now-apply.

When an ice cube freezes, it doesn't go from not obeying the laws of gravity to obeying them.

In other words, it's not that a singularity is necessarily outside of space and time. It's that time stands still inside a singularity, as measured by an external observer.

Waiting4evidence
Sage
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:52 am

Re: Kalam cosmological argument analysis

Post #16

Post by Waiting4evidence »

Ionian_Tradition wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote:
Ionian_Tradition wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote:

On the other hand...

If it is POSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist (like for example an eternal God), then the fact that something exists doesn't of necessity mean that it must have begun to exist. Thus, the fact that the universe exists doesn't of necessity mean that the universe began to exist. Thus premise 2 is not necessarily true. We have NOT observed the universe to begin existing, we do NOT understand the singularity, and are unable to probe further in the past than the few seconds AFTER the Big Bang. Thus the notion that the universe began to exist is SPECULATIVE, not FACTUAL.

Therefore, if it's possible for something to exist without having began to exist, and it is therefore possible for the universe to exist without having begun to exist, and if only that which began to exist must of necessity have been caused by something, then the universe was not necessarily caused.



My entire argument in short form:
Is it possible for an entity to exist without having begun to exist?
If it is not possible, then the entity that caused the universe must have begun to exist, and thus must have been caused.
If it is possible, then premise 2 is not necessarily true, and thus conclusion 3 is not true.

Thoughts?

(Please, no arguments based on special pleading)

I believe the apologist might be inclined to respond by calling attention to the potentially unsettling implications of an eternally existing universe, namely the problem of entropy and infinite regress, as a means of arguing that the universe must have had a beginning.
I believe the counter-apologist might be inclined to respond by calling attention to the potentially unsettling implications of an eternally existing GOD, namely the problem of entropy and infinite regress, as a means of arguing that GOD must have had a beginning.

See what I did? Whatever problems one may point to with the notion of an eternal universe can be used to punch holes into the notion of an eternal God.
How exactly does the problem of entropy apply to a immaterial entity? How does time apply to a timeless entity? The correlation escapes me.
Oh, I see. Are you saying that prior to the Big Bang the universe was immaterial and timeless, and thus the problem of entropy wouldn't apply to it? I agree that this sounds reasonable. The problem of eternity and entropy do not apply to the pre-big bang universe.
Ionian_Tradition wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote:
Ionian_Tradition wrote:Entropy implies the universe must become increasingly disordered over time. If the universe is infinitely old, our presently ordered universe should not exist because there would have been an infinite amount of time for the universe to become disordered prior to the present moment.
That is only a valid argument if one assumes that entropy always increases. There could be an eternal back and forth between an expanding universe with increasing entropy, then falling back onto itself under its own gravitational force and reducing back to a singularity in a process of decrease in entropy.
Then you face the problem of an infinite number of oscillation events which would precede the universe we inhabit today, thus preventing our present universe from ever forming.
The problem would only present itself if you assume linear time.

But I do agree that the notion of big bang/big crunch oscillation only partially addresses the issue, by putting to bed the issue of increased entropy.

What truly is that last nail in the coffin of this aspect of Kalam's argument, is Einsteinian relativity. Eternity as an infiinite amount along a linear time axis is simply a 19th century outdated model of reality, much like the flat earth model.
Ionian_Tradition wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote:
Ionian_Tradition wrote:A universe existing eternally in time implies and infinite number of moments which would necessarily precede the present, which would have prevented the present moment from ever arriving in the first place....Provided we grant an "A-theory" of time of course.
Well, yeah, general relativity destroys the notion of linear time on which this entire hypothesis is predicated. We know that gravitational fields warp time and slow it down. Time at a singularity would literally STOP. Thus, while eternity would seem to have passed from the standpoint of an external observer, no time at all would have elapsed as measured from within the singularity. In other words, at the singularity (which is what the entity existing at the Big Bang was) eternity= zero time. It's not just space, but also time that was compressed at the big bang.
If time stopped within a singularity then what, would you say, caused the universe to begin expanding?
A random quantum fluctuation.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Everything which begins has a cause, or so the argument goes, yet causation is a finite event which is measurable by time. Finite causal events cannot occur when time is static.
Are you saying that timeless immaterial entities are unable to participate in any way in the game of cause and effect?

Watch out, you're one step away from disproving God.
Ionian_Tradition wrote:How then could time have started from a static state if any causal event preceding it could only have occurred within elapsing time?
What did God do before creating the universe?

Please be advised, so that you don't think I'm doing any kind of "gotcha" debating, that whatever answer you give, I will use to "explain" how a timeless, immaterial pre-big-bang universe could have morphed into the current universe.

(please, no special pleading)
Ionian_Tradition wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote: The notion of "infinite number of instants in the past" is simply outdated and flawed.

Imagine you thought the world was flat. It would make perfect sense to you to claim "The earth either has an edge or it continues in all directions for an infinite amount of space".

The fact that the earth is a globe makes your assertion meaningless.

Similarly, if you thought that time is linear, you might make the statement "Something must either have had a beginning or existed forever".

The fact that time is not linear but warped by gravitational fields makes that assertion meaningless.
Can you explain how warped time escapes the problem I've stated above?
I'm not sure what problem you're referring to.

I have to leave my answer vague, because I'm not sure what I'm answering exactly. I'll just leave you with an image that I hope can make you see what I'm saying:

How do you make it possible for a race car to run in a straight line for eternity if you have only a limited amount of tarmac with which to build road for the car to drive on?

You build the straight road on top of a globe shaped planet.

Mass Noun
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 9:57 pm
Location: Ohio

Post #17

Post by Mass Noun »

Ionian Tradition,
I believe the apologist might be inclined to respond by calling attention to the potentially unsettling implications of an eternally existing universe, namely the problem of entropy and infinite regress, as a means of arguing that the universe must have had a beginning.
At that point, the apologist might also reveal the lack of a robust understanding of entropy and appeal to generic definitions.
Entropy implies the universe must become increasingly disordered over time. If the universe is infinitely old, our presently ordered universe should not exist because there would have been an infinite amount of time for the universe to become disordered prior to the present moment.
Entropy is time's arrow, and that sort of thing. Conditionally, your statement is incorrect. Or at least reliant upon notions or order and disorder which you choose to acknowledge, based upon observance or preference. The universe may be infinite, to define it as infinitely old is to introduce a concept of time which must have some relative meaning.
A universe existing eternally in time implies and infinite number of moments which would necessarily precede the present, which would have prevented the present moment from ever arriving in the first place....Provided we grant an "A-theory" of time of course.
Please explain. I do not understand your example. It appears as though you appeal to a linear concept of time, yet only in reverse. Why?

Waiting4evidence
Sage
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:52 am

Post #18

Post by Waiting4evidence »

OK, thank you for all the responses. Given that nobody provided any direct response to my debunking of kalam, and given that the few tangential halfhearted arguments have been readily put to rest by me and several other users, can we tentatively agree that Kalam's Argument can be considered debunked, at least until such a time as somebody presents some kind of direct response to this post?

User avatar
AquinasD
Guru
Posts: 1802
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 1:20 am
Contact:

Re: Kalam cosmological argument analysis

Post #19

Post by AquinasD »

Waiting4evidence wrote:My entire argument in short form:
Is it possible for an entity to exist without having begun to exist?
If it is not possible, then the entity that caused the universe must have begun to exist, and thus must have been caused.
If it is possible, then premise 2 is not necessarily true, and thus conclusion 3 is not true.

Thoughts?
That seems valid. But what reason do we have for believing that things can't exist without having become, i.e. starting to exist at some point in time?
For a truly religious man nothing is tragic.
~Ludwig Wittgenstein

Waiting4evidence
Sage
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:52 am

Re: Kalam cosmological argument analysis

Post #20

Post by Waiting4evidence »

AquinasD wrote:
Waiting4evidence wrote:My entire argument in short form:
Is it possible for an entity to exist without having begun to exist?
If it is not possible, then the entity that caused the universe must have begun to exist, and thus must have been caused.
If it is possible, then premise 2 is not necessarily true, and thus conclusion 3 is not true.

Thoughts?
That seems valid. But what reason do we have for believing that things can't exist without having become, i.e. starting to exist at some point in time?
You misunderstand me.

I am saying that a true dichotomy exists: EITHER entities CAN exist without beginning to exist OR they CANNOT.

Either/or

I do not express judgment on which of the only two options is true.

I do not posit that option 2 is the true one and entities cannot exist without having begun to exist. You are asking me to justify a position I do not hold.

My argument is that in EITHER case, Kalam's argument fails.

If it is POSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist, then premise 2 of Kalam's argument is not necessarily true, but rather, just a speculative assertion.

If it is IMPOSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist, then something caused God, which makes the very concept of God as defined by Kalam a self-contradictory proposition, because an entity cannot simultaneously be a supreme being and just a cog in a line of infinite causal regress.

In short, using exclusively the premises of Kalam's own argument, I have proved that God is either unnecessary or self-contradictory.

Do you accept the validity of my argument, and do you agree to speak out in the future against any theist who tries to use Kalam's argument to justify his faith?

Post Reply