The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

Hello, gang

This is my long-awaited thread on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). There will be a series of threads related to this argument. Why? Because there will more than likely be topics/sub-topics which relates to it, and I don't want things to get conflated.

The Cosmological argument has taken many forms over the past few centuries. I'd like to focus on the most popular formulation of the argument, namely, the Kalam version..which is Christian apologist William Lane Craig's version (or at least the one that he champions).

The argument goes a little something like this..

1. Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

And just so we take it one step at a time, I'd like this thread to focus on P1 of the argument..

P1: Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause

I really hope we don't get too bogged down with the truth value of P1, because the meat and potatoes is in P2. Can we all just agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause? As tempting as it is to just jump to P2, I have to refrain..as I don't want to assume that everyone here agrees with P1.

That being said; I am here to defend the TRUTH value of P1, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

In other words, things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING. We can sum it up these 3 ways..our common sense intuition tells us that..

Intuition
1. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
2. Nothing cannot create something.
3. Something cannot come from nothing.

Those three, in a nut shell, is ALL that is being stated in P1 of the argument. I'd like to know the wise guy who disagrees with any of the above 3.

If we can all agree to P1, then we can move to P2, where things tend to get a little ugly...not ugly for me, but for you guys.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Hello, gang

This is my long-awaited thread on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). There will be a series of threads related to this argument. Why? Because there will more than likely be topics/sub-topics which relates to it, and I don't want things to get conflated.

The Cosmological argument has taken many forms over the past few centuries. I'd like to focus on the most popular formulation of the argument, namely, the Kalam version..which is Christian apologist William Lane Craig's version (or at least the one that he champions).

The argument goes a little something like this..

1. Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

And just so we take it one step at a time, I'd like this thread to focus on P1 of the argument..

P1: Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause

I really hope we don't get too bogged down with the truth value of P1, because the meat and potatoes is in P2. Can we all just agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause? As tempting as it is to just jump to P2, I have to refrain..as I don't want to assume that everyone here agrees with P1.

That being said; I am here to defend the TRUTH value of P1, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

In other words, things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING. We can sum it up these 3 ways..our common sense intuition tells us that..

Intuition
1. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
2. Nothing cannot create something.
3. Something cannot come from nothing.

Those three, in a nut shell, is ALL that is being stated in P1 of the argument. I'd like to know the wise guy who disagrees with any of the above 3.

If we can all agree to P1, then we can move to P2, where things tend to get a little ugly...not ugly for me, but for you guys.

This depends on what you are referring to as "began to exist." It is observed that every effect is preceded by an earlier cause. No discreet uncaused beginnings are observed. You "began to exist," but your existence was preceded by an earlier cause. What was the cause for the beginning of the universe? Physicists call it quantum mechanics. Essentially, matter/energy interacts with itself creating constant change.

[Divine Insight]

That being said; I am here to defend the TRUTH value of P1, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

Based on known modern physics it isn't necessarily true that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

You are thinking in terms of macro physics. But the current most popular theory of the beginning of the universe is that it began as a quantum fluctuation. And quantum fluctuations don't necessarily have a cause. Certainly not one that can be known by physics.

~~~~

Also, consider the following:

For all we know quantum fields and fluctuations have always existed. Therefore there isn't any reason to suggest that they haven't "always" existed.

So where do you hope to go with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Apparently you are hoping to end with #3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

~~~~

So now my question would be, "Why place this in Christianity and Apologetics?"

In what way would this argument help Christian theology or offer any apologies for it?

Even if we concluded that the universe had a cause this wouldn't help the myriad of problems with Christian theology. Nor would it even remotely suggest that this primal cause would need to be a complex intelligent entity that consciously decided to create a universe.

The question then becomes, "How did this complex conscious being come to be?"

If your answer is that it always existed, that's a pretty weak argument for the existence of a complex conscious God don't you think?

May as well just say that quantum fields always existed and just leave it at that.

Like I say, none of this is going to help Christian Theology that has a God who can't even control his own wrath. That theology has countless problems of its own. Something like the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't going to change that.

I would even suggest that if a Christian apologist is reaching for something like the Kalam Cosmological Argument in an effort to apologize for their absurd theology this already speaks volumes to just how troubled their theology truly is. If their theology had any merit it should be compelling on its own.

[For_The_Kingdom]

This depends on what you are referring to as "began to exist."

Began to exist: an entity whose existence comes in to being, from a "state" (for lack of better term) of non being and/or non existence.

It is observed that every effect is preceded by an earlier cause.

Every effect which comes into being*

No discreet uncaused beginnings are observed.

The KCA shows (or will show) that an uncaused cause is absolutely positively necessary.

You "began to exist," but your existence was preceded by an earlier cause.

No denying that one.

What was the cause for the beginning of the universe? Physicists call it quantum mechanics. Essentially, matter/energy interacts with itself creating constant change.

Ok, so if "quantum mechanics" was the cause for the beginning of the universe, then the universe did not "come from nothing", did it? So that doesn't negate any of my three "intuition" points.

That being said, to say that quantum mechanics was the cause of the universe is to be both philosophoically and scientifically inaccurate.

Of course, we will get to all of that...either way, will you agree that things don't just pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing??

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

1. Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause

This is the archaic argument that confuses things 1. being born and water freezing, 2. with fundamental particles of nature.

So with this distinction made lets re-examine #1.
Everything that begins to exist has cause: 1. Yes, babies being born and water freezing has a cause. But there is no mystery. Things happen for a reason, in stars, in nature and so on, the cause is obvious.
2. Now let's re-examine #1 now that we have entered the 20th century and have an understanding of fundamental particles, which I will call atoms - to include the elements of the periodic table, their constituents and bosons.
Hydrogen does not decay, ever, except in the most obscure theories of physics, and it has never been observed. It is very reasonable to conclude that hydrogen is immortal unless acted upon by nuclear forces. Therefore it is not, nor was it ever created,
Now things that are not hydrogen are actually hydrogen when compressed by nuclear forces, and forming helium and other elements. When compressed to energies similar to the Big Bang these form things called bosons, which pass through each other like ghosts.
This means no creator is needed.
So long as we don't believe as Christian (not earlier Greek) Philosophers deceived us into believing, that birth and atoms are the same, it is obvious to anyone this side of the 20th century, and the other side of the 1st century, that #1 is a false argument based on conflation, or, a juvenile pun.

2. The universe began to exist

Now that we know that perhaps the universe began to exist, as in born, but not that what made it up began to exist, we can dismiss #2 as specious.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Now we can easily dismiss #3 with our understanding of what cause is.

Welcome to the 20th century.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

One of the biggest problems I might have with these "cosmological" arguments is that they place the invisible man out of reach, you might say. We're trying to prove the Bible god's existence, after all, and the Bible portrays this magical being as being in some important ways very close and very involved in human affairs. He reveals his plans to prophets, he parts seas, and he raises people from the dead. By contrast these cosmological arguments, even if they are valid, only serve to demonstrate that there is a magical being very far away in both space and time.

But the cosmological argument isn't valid. It's based on unproved assumptions in particular it's claim that the universe has a cause, whatever that might mean.

So let's face it: no god created us--we created the gods. Nothing we create could create the cosmos. Simply put, that's why these arguments for gods fail.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 4 by For_The_Kingdom]

Began to exist: an entity whose existence comes in to being, from a "state" (for lack of better term) of non being and/or non existence.

This has never been observed to have occurred in all of human history.

Every effect which comes into being*

"Comes into being" according to your definition has never been observed. The idea is purely conceptual.

The KCA shows (or will show) that an uncaused cause is absolutely positively necessary.

The KCA cannot "show" that an uncaused cause is responsible, because no such thing has ever been observed to occur. At best KCA can only speculate about such a condition. This is better known as make believe because the idea has been entirely derived from imagination and speculation.

Ok, so if "quantum mechanics" was the cause for the beginning of the universe, then the universe did not "come from nothing", did it? So that doesn't negate any of my three "intuition" points.

No, the universe did not come from nothing. The universe is composed of energy. Energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Wikipedia
Conservation of Energy
In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

According to all observation and experimentation, energy is eternal. It changes from form to form due to the properties of quantum mechanics.

That being said, to say that quantum mechanics was the cause of the universe is to be both philosophoically and scientifically inaccurate.

I have no problem conceding that quantum mechanics contradicts philosophy. Philosophy is under no requirement to be based on scientific observation. The Wikipedia quote REPRESENTS the current state of scientific observation on physical law, however.

Of course, we will get to all of that...either way, will you agree that things don't just pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing??

That is in fact what I have been saying all along. No such thing has EVER been observed to occur.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Based on known modern physics it isn't necessarily true that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

You are thinking in terms of macro physics. But the current most popular theory of the beginning of the universe is that it began as a quantum fluctuation. And quantum fluctuations don't necessarily have a cause. Certainly not one that can be known by physics.

So, let me see if I have you correct: Are you stating that our universe popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing, in some quantum vacuum? Is that what you are saying?

If that is what you are saying, then you have a philosophical problem, sir. Let's say that you are correct, things pop in to being uncaused out of nothing, as "quantum fluctuations (whatever that means).

So now the question is, what is so special about this quantum "realm" that allows for X to pop in to being, and not Y or Z?

The state of nothingness doesn't have any pre-conditions that will only allow X to pop in to being, and not Y.

If a horse suddenly pops into your living room, out of nothing...there are no pre-deterministic factors that allowed a horse to pop into being, and not a cow (or any other arbitrary thing).

Not only is this scientifically impossible, but it defies logic and reasoning, unless you can tell me what is so "special" about universes that only they (universes) can come from nothing...and not cars, money, horses, or any other arbitrary thing.

And if you even BEGIN to think of a reason, you are putting a condition on "nothingness", which is in itself absurd.

~~~~

Also, consider the following:

For all we know quantum fields and fluctuations have always existed. Therefore there isn't any reason to suggest that they haven't "always" existed.

Logically impossible.

So where do you hope to go with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

To Uncaused Cause places.

Apparently you are hoping to end with #3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

We will get there..in due time.

So now my question would be, "Why place this in Christianity and Apologetics?"

In what way would this argument help Christian theology or offer any apologies for it?

In order to get to the Christian God, you have to get to "God", first.

Even if we concluded that the universe had a cause this wouldn't help the myriad of problems with Christian theology.

It isn't meant to, as one can appeal to other arguments for all of that other stuff...which, by the way, I do.

Nor would it even remotely suggest that this primal cause would need to be a complex intelligent entity that consciously decided to create a universe.

It does.

The question then becomes, "How did this complex conscious being come to be?"

If your answer is that it always existed, that's a pretty weak argument for the existence of a complex conscious God don't you think?

But that isn't the argument, that is the conclusion of the argument. You do know the difference, don't you?

May as well just say that quantum fields always existed and just leave it at that.

I guess it is much more desirable to say that quantum fields always existed rather that God, considering the fact that you won't be held accountable for your sins to quantum fields.

I can see why that is indeed more "desirable". But, being more desirable doesn't mean more "true". You are gonna need much more than that.

And besides, I have reasons NOT to believe in this so called "eternal quantum field", or whatever it is you appeal to.

Like I say, none of this is going to help Christian Theology that has a God who can't even control his own wrath. That theology has countless problems of its own. Something like the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't going to change that.

Straw man brewing.

I would even suggest that if a Christian apologist is reaching for something like the Kalam Cosmological Argument in an effort to apologize for their absurd theology this already speaks volumes to just how troubled their theology truly is. If their theology had any merit it should be compelling on its own.

I would suggest that if a current unbeliever is reaching for eternal life in an effort to escape God's wrath, he/she should just place faith in Jesus Christ.

[Divine Insight]

So, let me see if I have you correct: Are you stating that our universe popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing, in some quantum vacuum? Is that what you are saying?

That's not what I'm saying. This is simply the most popular hypotheses in physics today.

If that is what you are saying, then you have a philosophical problem, sir. Let's say that you are correct, things pop in to being uncaused out of nothing, as "quantum fluctuations (whatever that means).

So now the question is, what is so special about this quantum "realm" that allows for X to pop in to being, and not Y or Z?

The state of nothingness doesn't have any pre-conditions that will only allow X to pop in to being, and not Y.

If a horse suddenly pops into your living room, out of nothing...there are no pre-deterministic factors that allowed a horse to pop into being, and not a cow (or any other arbitrary thing).

Not only is this scientifically impossible, but it defies logic and reasoning, unless you can tell me what is so "special" about universes that only they (universes) can come from nothing...and not cars, money, horses, or any other arbitrary thing.

And if you even BEGIN to think of a reason, you are putting a condition on "nothingness", which is in itself absurd.

This has all been answered in the theory of Quantum Mechanics. It's not my theory. I wish it was. But it actually makes perfect sense once you understand it and realize that quantum fields are not nothing.

They are the eternally existing energy that gives rise to things like our universe.

Keep in mind that what you would need would be a highly structured "God" to replace the quantum fields.

How would that make your theory any better. I think you're the one who needs to stop and think about this a bit more.

~~~~

Also, consider the following:

For all we know quantum fields and fluctuations have always existed. Therefore there isn't any reason to suggest that they haven't "always" existed.

Logically impossible.

In that case what would you propose? That a highly complex sentient God has always existed?

I think quantum fields always existing makes far more sense.

For you to propose that a highly complex sentient God has always existed would be far more logically impossible.

So where do you hope to go with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

To Uncaused Cause places.

Well that certainly couldn't be a complex sentient God. Unless you can explain how an uncaused complex sentient God makes any logical sense.

And we all know that this is where you are hoping to go with this.

Apparently you are hoping to end with #3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

We will get there..in due time.

You will never get to where you are hoping to get to. Especially if you claim that it's impossible for very simple quantum fields to always exist. If you claim that is impossible then you could never claim that it's logically sensible to conclude that a complex sentient God always existed.

So now my question would be, "Why place this in Christianity and Apologetics?"

In what way would this argument help Christian theology or offer any apologies for it?

In order to get to the Christian God, you have to get to "God", first.

But that won't help Christian theology because Christian theology is itself a contradictory paradigm.

Even if we concluded that the universe had a cause this wouldn't help the myriad of problems with Christian theology.

It isn't meant to, as one can appeal to other arguments for all of that other stuff...which, by the way, I do.

Well, clearly you can't be making any compelling arguments in that area or you wouldn't need to be resorting to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This is the kind of argument you turn to only after you realized that there is no compelling arguments for the scriptural theology.

Nor would it even remotely suggest that this primal cause would need to be a complex intelligent entity that consciously decided to create a universe.

It does.

Well, you'll need to make a case for that. Good luck with that one.

The question then becomes, "How did this complex conscious being come to be?"

If your answer is that it always existed, that's a pretty weak argument for the existence of a complex conscious God don't you think?

But that isn't the argument, that is the conclusion of the argument. You do know the difference, don't you?

No, it's not the conclusion. I've already pointed out that quantum fields of energy that have always existed could just as easily be the conclusion. So apparently you are too anxious to be jumping to conclusions that aren't even warranted.

May as well just say that quantum fields always existed and just leave it at that.

I guess it is much more desirable to say that quantum fields always existed rather that God, considering the fact that you won't be held accountable for your sins to quantum fields.

Being held accountable for my "sins" is the very last thing I would ever need to worry about. Especially if there existed a decent intelligent Creator God.

The only God I would need to worry about would be a hateful demonic God. Is that what you are proposing created the universe?

Because if you are proposing a decent honest and intelligent God, then there would certainly be no reason for me to fear such a God.

I can see why that is indeed more "desirable". But, being more desirable doesn't mean more "true". You are gonna need much more than that.

What would be more desirable? That there is no decent benevolent God who values decency?

I would have absolutely no problem at all if a decent benevolent God exists. In fact, as far as I'm concerned that would be absolutely GREAT!

Apparently you seem to think that this God that created the universe is some sort of hateful monster than we should all fear. At least it sure sounds that way from the suggestions you've been making here.

And besides, I have reasons NOT to believe in this so called "eternal quantum field", or whatever it is you appeal to.

Well, you'll need to explain what those reasons are so we can evaluate how "reasonable" they are.

Like I say, none of this is going to help Christian Theology that has a God who can't even control his own wrath. That theology has countless problems of its own. Something like the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't going to change that.

Straw man brewing.

Well, duh? You're the one who has already suggested that people might be afraid to believe in your God because he might be mean to them because of some nonsense called "sins".

So you're the one who has an angry God who can't control his own wrath.

I would even suggest that if a Christian apologist is reaching for something like the Kalam Cosmological Argument in an effort to apologize for their absurd theology this already speaks volumes to just how troubled their theology truly is. If their theology had any merit it should be compelling on its own.

I would suggest that if a current unbeliever is reaching for eternal life in an effort to escape God's wrath, he/she should just place faith in Jesus Christ.

There you go. Even you confess that your religion is all about escaping the wrath of an angry God.

I rest my case.

[rikuoamero]

Excuse me one moment people
Runs downstairs, pours glass of water, drinks, then does a spittake.

I think that's an appropriate reaction to the existence of this thread. It's taken FtK what...? Two, three years to get to Kalam? I'm not going to debate the argument per se, in this reply (I might do so later) but right now, I'm just going to reply to a few choice comments from FtK.

It isn't meant to, as one can appeal to other arguments for all of that other stuff...which, by the way, I do.

FtK, remember in all the debates you had with myself and the rest of the gang on the Modal Cosmological Argument, where you said more than once that you would reach for/cite KCA? The response you got? The same thing applies here. It does you no good to say "MCA" or whatever argument you name - you need to establish the veracity of those arguments before you can do what would like some weird argument from authority.
In fact, your particular situation is unique in that we've already debated MCA and other arguments practically to death. You've had two formal Head to Heads on MCA (the first time with myself), forfeited both times on that, after having a grand thread where you debated it with everyone on the site in 2016.
Is your plan on this thread to say "MCA" whenever you get backed into a corner, and say that a point you make is true because of the MCA? Are you going to do what a certain other user did recently, and cite earlier arguments you've made that, with your citing them, act as if all the rebuttals to them never happened?

I guess it is much more desirable to say that quantum fields always existed rather that God, considering the fact that you won't be held accountable for your sins to quantum fields.

I call this to be projection, in that yours is the worldview where sin is actually a thing, but also...where you are not going to be punished for the sins that you think you really ought to be punished for.
My worldview, or the worldview of DI, is one that does not have sin. So our worldview cannot be said to be one where we are not held accountable for our sins. That is you and yours, good sir. Yours is the one where humanity are judged guilty of some nebulous thing called sin, yours is the one where humanity is given a get out of jail free card due to the death and resurrection of a one Jesus Christ.
We are not the ones believing that we are sinners that somehow have found a way out of our oh so richly deserved punishment.

Every effect which comes into being

FtK, let me demolish the KCA with but one question.

This means there are two categories. Things which came into being, and things which do not come into being.
What belongs in the second category? What CAN belong in the second category? More to the point - and pay attention here - if the ONLY thing that can belong in the second category is this thing that you call "God"...why not simply name the second category God in the first place, such that we have "Things which came into being" and "God"?

The KCA is old hat for me and mine. I didn't have to think about it very hard or even look anything up. It shows that you have nothing, FtK.

Oh and by the way, just to remind you? A philosophical argument is not evidence of anything. It is not evidence for God.