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

[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.

Yes, certainly. I just explained in my last post, that I definitely should have been more clear about this, I suggest reading that so I'm not terribly redundant here.

Therefore, if it is a circular argument as you claim, it isn't a very good one

It appears that it only becomes circular when used as a 'proof' of a god. Also covered in my last post (and my last post to you as well I believe). Either way, not an argument I would use as I find it, well fairly useless.

[Artie]

I don't see why cause and effect couldn't happen simultaneously.

Because of course without time there would be nothing to separate "cause" from "effect" and the whole expression would be meaningless.

2. We simply inherited time from an earlier universe. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... erse-.html

If the second premise is sound, then there cannot be an infinite regress of universes in physical time.

Why not?

[instantc]

I don't see why cause and effect couldn't happen simultaneously.

Because of course without time there would be nothing to separate "cause" from "effect" and the whole expression would be meaningless.

'Because of course it is so', great argument. Again, I see no reason why cause and effect cannot occur simultaneously.

If the second premise is sound, then there cannot be an infinite regress of universes in physical time.

Why not?

Because the whole point of the second premise is that an infinite past regress of time is impossible. If that cannot be shown, then the argument doesn't work.

[instantc]

Are you not happy that the argument, valid as it is, is specifically designed to prove God?

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.

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

Seems like I misunderstood your argument then

[Artie]

I don't see why cause and effect couldn't happen simultaneously.

Because of course without time there would be nothing to separate "cause" from "effect" and the whole expression would be meaningless.

'Because of course it is so', great argument. Again, I see no reason why cause and effect cannot occur simultaneously.

Because the definition of causality is "the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]" Wikipedia. Without time how can there be a first event and then a second? Of course two events can occur simultaneously but then one can't be the cause and the other the effect. If you still don't understand that I give up.

If the second premise is sound, then there cannot be an infinite regress of universes in physical time.

Why not?

Because the whole point of the second premise is that an infinite past regress of time is impossible. If that cannot be shown, then the argument doesn't work.

If our universe was born from some other universe, and that universe was born from some other universe, why couldn't that have been going on forever back in time?

[instantc]

Because the definition of causality is "the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]" Wikipedia. Without time how can there be a first event and then a second? Of course two events can occur simultaneously but then one can't be the cause and the other the effect. If you still don't understand that I give up.

As long as we are substantiating our arguments with quotes, Thomas Aquinas has written lots of work on the subject and believes that cause and effect can occur simultaneously. Obviously you are much wiser though. You sound quite arrogantly confident on a controversial issue, as always Artie, without making an actual argument.

For example, a builder is the efficient cause for the building, and the builder is strictly speaking only a builder once he has started building the building, at which point the effect has started occurring as well. Here I think the efficient cause and the effect happen simultaneously.

If our universe was born from some other universe, and that universe was born from some other universe, why couldn't that have been going on forever back in time?

Perhaps an infinite regress of time is possible and the premise is wrong, I'm not an expert on that. I'm just trying to coordinate the conversation to the essential premises instead of a rambling set of vague objections.

[Artie]

Because the definition of causality is "the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]" Wikipedia. Without time how can there be a first event and then a second? Of course two events can occur simultaneously but then one can't be the cause and the other the effect. If you still don't understand that I give up.

For example, a builder is the efficient cause for the building, and the builder is strictly speaking only a builder once he has started building the building, at which point the effect has started occurring as well. Here I think the efficient cause and the effect happen simultaneously.

You are talking about metaphysical causes such as "efficient cause" as outlined by Aquinas while I was talking about the general principle of "cause and effect" which requires time. Any change, any chemical reaction or any movement etc requires time and any effect is the consequence of the previous change, chemical reaction or movement etc. so what we call "cause and effect" is just a string of changes in time. Don't confuse metaphysical concepts with actual physical reality.

[instantc]

Because the definition of causality is "the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]" Wikipedia. Without time how can there be a first event and then a second? Of course two events can occur simultaneously but then one can't be the cause and the other the effect. If you still don't understand that I give up.

For example, a builder is the efficient cause for the building, and the builder is strictly speaking only a builder once he has started building the building, at which point the effect has started occurring as well. Here I think the efficient cause and the effect happen simultaneously.

You are talking about metaphysical causes such as "efficient cause" as outlined by Aquinas while I was talking about the general principle of "cause and effect" which requires time. Any change, any chemical reaction or any movement etc requires time and any effect is the consequence of the previous change, chemical reaction or movement etc. so what we call "cause and effect" is just a string of changes in time. Don't confuse metaphysical concepts with actual physical reality.

Well, obviously KCA is trying to show that the universe has an efficient, not a material cause. Thus, the above is irrelevant to the argument. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that there cannot be an efficient cause without a material cause? But, again you cannot substantiate that claim, it's just an assertion.

[Artie]

Well, obviously KCA is trying to show that the universe has an efficient, not a material cause. Thus, the above is irrelevant to the argument. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that there cannot be an efficient cause without a material cause? But, again you cannot substantiate that claim, it's just an assertion.

Let us say that if it hadn't been for cause and effect meteorologists wouldn't have been able to predict the weather for tomorrow because the weather tomorrow is a result of the conditions today. And the weather today is a result of the conditions yesterday. And the weather yesterday was a result of the conditions the day before yesterday. The difference between me and a theist is that I believe the weather yesterday was caused by the conditions the day before yesterday, a theist could say that the weather yesterday was not caused by the conditions the day before yesterday but by a god. I find such an argument irrational whether it concerns the weather or the universe or whatever else no matter how many arguments one might try to come up with to persuade me that the weather yesterday was caused by a god and not something natural. Why would any person claim that the weather yesterday was caused by a god and was not a result of any previous natural conditions?

[AndyT_81]

Hi NoisForm,

Thanks for the clarifying comments, here are some more thoughts.

While the argument clearly is intended to show God exists, I still think we can look at it divorced from its intentions and defend the first premise as not merely setting up an easy goal for the ultimate conclusion that God exists. You suggest that the first premise could very well be "things that exist have a cause", but I would suggest the reason that is not the first premise is because I don't know of any reason to think that premise is true - apart from an appeal to induction, which in turn falls foul of the fallacy of composition. On the other hand, the actual first premise "things that begin to exist have a cause" definitely has a good reason going for it in the idea that things do not come into being from nothing.

Now, the cause arrived at in (3) has to be investigated. Craig doesn't make the argument that (3) is God because of a disjunction in (1). Rather, he argues that because space and time had a beginning when the universe began, whatever caused it must necessarily be immaterial and eternal. Now it is not clear that something eternal necessarily requires a cause* and therefore this eternal being does not fall under the predicate "begins to exist". Therefore, we have got to a necessary, uncaused cause via the idea of a timeless cause which created time, not via doctoring up premise (1) to necessarily lead to this conclusion.

What do you think?

*Note, I'm not sure Craig closes the gap in the area of a potentially infinite series of timeless causes (all acting with instantaneous causation on each other), but I haven't read all he has written on this subject. It might be that his philosophical arguments using Hilbert's Hotel may address this issue, but I need to investigate more. In any case though, I think the KCA disproves naturalism at the very least.