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]

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.

Can such a state exist?? Can anything exist 'outside time'?

[Ooberman]

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).

I think we can all safely say we don't know if these things are true or not, but why would the Cause have to be a Moral Person?

[Goat]

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).

That is an equivocation of the word 'cause'.

[AndyT_81]

Hi Goat,

Can such a state exist?? Can anything exist 'outside time'?

If the argument is sound - then yes, it has been demonstrated that such a state can exist.

That is an equivocation of the word 'cause'.

I'll repeat the questions I posed you: how there could be virtual particles if there were no QM fields? Or if the fields in question behaved classically instead of quantum mechanically? Or even more generally, could a virtual particle come into existence from absolute nothing, with no fields, no space-time, no other particles, nothing?

If you answer that there would be no virtual particles in these instances, you are affirming the idea of a formal cause. All of these things are necessary causes for virtual particles to exist, note the definition of a necessary cause:

"If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur." (from Wikipedia)

Hi Ooberman,

I think we can all safely say we don't know if these things are true or not, but why would the Cause have to be a Moral Person?

I think we can definitely safely say if the quantum fields behaved classically, then virtual particles would not exist, as they are quantum fluctuations governed by the uncertainty principle. Classical fields descriptions do not include the uncertainty principle. I'll repeat the question I asked Goat to you: could a virtual particle come into existence from absolute nothing, with no fields, no space-time, no other particles, nothing?

I'll leave the personhood argument for a bit until we get this sorted as I don't want to muddy the water just yet. A valid question though, thanks

[Goat]

Hi Goat,

Can such a state exist?? Can anything exist 'outside time'?

If the argument is sound - then yes, it has been demonstrated that such a state can exist.

Please give references. And, since this is a claim about REALITY, have it a physics reference, not a philosophical reference.

That is an equivocation of the word 'cause'.

I'll repeat the questions I posed you: how there could be virtual particles if there were no QM fields? Or if the fields in question behaved classically instead of quantum mechanically? Or even more generally, could a virtual particle come into existence from absolute nothing, with no fields, no space-time, no other particles, nothing?

And, I repeat, what are the properties of 'absolute nothing'. Absolute nothing has no rules, now does it, because , if it had rules, it would not be absolute nothing. If it has no rules, then, all bets are off, and anything can happen.

Of course, you can not show that 'absolute nothing' isn't anything more than a word game anyway. Can you show it is actually possible?

[AndyT_81]

Hi Goat,

Please give references. And, since this is a claim about REALITY, have it a physics reference, not a philosophical reference.

Here you are doing two things - (1) you are falsly assuming that physics can tell us something about an atemporal state of being, when physics (note the name of the discipline) is about physical things and physical things exist in time. (2) you are assuming that only science can give us an understanding of the truths of reality.

I reject both of these claims, and ask you to demonstrate how they are valid.

And, I repeat, what are the properties of 'absolute nothing'. Absolute nothing has no rules, now does it, because , if it had rules, it would not be absolute nothing. If it has no rules, then, all bets are off, and anything can happen.

Please think about what you are saying here. You're saying that the state of absolute nothingness has essentially unlimited possibilities. From what could these possibilities be grounded in? Surely you can't really believe this to be true, because it would undermine all your own intellectual positions. For all you know, all the evidence that we have of evolution could have popped into being 10000 years ago out of absolute nothingness. You would have no way of determining the probability of that, because according to you, any possibility can emerge from absolute nothingness with no problem at all. Are you really that desperate to reject theism that you will accept this view?

Of course, you can not show that 'absolute nothing' isn't anything more than a word game anyway. Can you show it is actually possible?

The problem of absolute nothingness is not the theists to contend with, it is the atheists. The theist who accepts the KCA would say that absolute nothingness is impossible because there is an eternal God, and even in the absence of the universe He would still exist, and He is not nothing. However, if the atheist wants to reject the conclusion of the KCA, that at the very least there is a being that is immaterial, eternal and very powerful, then the only other option they have is the beginning of the universe coming into being out of absolute nothingness.

[Goat]

Hi Goat,

Please give references. And, since this is a claim about REALITY, have it a physics reference, not a philosophical reference.

Here you are doing two things - (1) you are falsly assuming that physics can tell us something about an atemporal state of being, when physics (note the name of the discipline) is about physical things and physical things exist in time. (2) you are assuming that only science can give us an understanding of the truths of reality.

Does the term 'atemporal state of being' refer to anything that can possibly exist beyond conceptually?? That sounds like, well , nonsense to me. Also , you have yet to demonstrate that word games, making things up, and makign wacky assumptions give us any understanding of 'truths of reality' either. I don't see how you can come up with 'truths of reality' without any real world data and checking.

I reject both of these claims, and ask you to demonstrate how they are valid.

And, here we have the shifting of the burden of proof, since I asked you to show that you are giving an accurate description of things.. and you are basically saying 'prove that I am not'. Sounds like word games , fluff and nonsense to me.

[instantc]

I reject both of these claims, and ask you to demonstrate how they are valid.

And, here we have the shifting of the burden of proof, since I asked you to show that you are giving an accurate description of things.. and you are basically saying 'prove that I am not'.

Wrong, you asked him to give you 'physical, not philosophical, evidence', which implies that physics is somehow superior to philosophy as a discipline in determining how the universe came to be. Please, back up your claim.

[AndyT_81]

Hi Goat,

Just for starters, thanks for the continuing discussion. Always good to have someone to duke things out with in a respectful fashion.

Does the term 'atemporal state of being' refer to anything that can possibly exist beyond conceptually?? That sounds like, well , nonsense to me. Also , you have yet to demonstrate that word games, making things up, and makign wacky assumptions give us any understanding of 'truths of reality' either. I don't see how you can come up with 'truths of reality' without any real world data and checking.

As I said earlier, if the KCA is sound, it is logically demonstrable that there is an eternal, non-physical being that created the universe. If you don't think that logical argument is capable of revealing reality, then this conversation is probably meaningless and so is science, which proceeds by way of logical deduction from empirical premises.

And, here we have the shifting of the burden of proof, since I asked you to show that you are giving an accurate description of things.. and you are basically saying 'prove that I am not'. Sounds like word games , fluff and nonsense to me.

I am not saying that at all. Here's essentially the argument I made:

1. If the KCA is sound, then the universe (space-time) had a cause
2. Whatever caused space-time must itself be immaterial and time-less/atemporal/eternal
3. Therefore, the creator of the universe must be immaterial and atemporal

If sound, this demonstrates that an atemporal state of being is possible. (2) seems self explanatory to me - whatever causes the totality of space-time must itself in no way be spatial or time-like, otherwise it wouldn't be the cause of the totality. To which you responded that (2) can't be demonstrated because we can't determine it by science. That is a positive claim that needs an argument - the burden of proof lies with however is making a positive claim. I have met my burden of proof by providing 1-3. You need to now meet yours. Essentially what instantc said.

You have to ask yourself the question though - what is more plausible? A atemporal state of being which the KCA demonstrates, or the idea that from nothing, everything and anything can come (which I don't even know how you would start to go about proving)? You seem to be curiously more comfortable with the latter than the former.

[Goat]

I reject both of these claims, and ask you to demonstrate how they are valid.

And, here we have the shifting of the burden of proof, since I asked you to show that you are giving an accurate description of things.. and you are basically saying 'prove that I am not'.

Wrong, you asked him to give you 'physical, not philosophical, evidence', which implies that physics is somehow superior to philosophy as a discipline in determining how the universe came to be. Please, back up your claim.

When making a claim about the physical world, I want phyiscal evidence, When making claims about the metaphysical, then I would not want phyiscal evidence , but metaphysical will be fine. So, that you is claiming is not relevant.