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.

[Divine Insight]

There's another problem here I should bring up.

The KCA relies upon the unwarranted assumption that all time is entropic. That is to say that entropy always holds true under all conditions and situations. But there are good reasons to believe that this is not the case. Entropy itself may entirely be a property of the macro world. In fact, we have very good reasons to believe this is the case.

Therefore if prior to the universe all that existed was quantum fields of fluctuating energy that energy may very well have existed in a state of non-entropic time.

In other words, to say that it has "always existed" into an imagined infinite past is wrong thinking. There would be no such thing as a past in non-entropic time. (i.e. a condition where entropy does not apply). In that state it's also meaning to say that anything happens "before" or "after" anything else, because before and after have no meaning in a non-entropic realm.

Therefore the entire Kalam Cosmological Argument is meaningless because it is making an assumption about the thermodynamic law of entropy that simply doesn't hold true prior to the existence of the universe.

Therefore no further explanation is required for why the KCA does not apply and cannot be used as an argument for anything.

Therefore this entire argument is really based on nothing more than demanding that entropy just always be true under all circumstances. But clearly that cannot be true because if entropy is always true then whatever exists would necessarily eventually run down and run out of energy.

Therefore if anything is said to "always exist" whatever that thing is it cannot obey the thermodynamic law of entropy.

In short, if an imagined eternal God existed it could not have entropy. It could therefore not have any meaningful past or future. All it could do is exist in a state of ever-changing 'now' that cannot have a recordable past (i.e. no memory or meaningful history allowed).

In short, if a God is claimed to exist in this condition this God could not have any memory of anything. And therefore it cannot be said to be conscious or sentient in any way because both of those concepts require being able to remember what has happened in the past.

So the answer is simply. KCA is dependent upon entropy always existing, but there is no reason to assume that this could be the case. In fact, it clearly cannot be the case because if something existed that has entropy (like our universe), then it cannot exist forever, it must necessarily "run down" and eventually die.

So there you go.

In fact, I've just proven why there can be no such thing as a God. A God would need to be non-entropic (not obey the law of entropy), in order to be eternal. Yet if it was non-entropic it could not be conscious or sentient. Therefore, by definition it could not be a "God". Thus we have scientific proof that there can be no God.

By golly I did it! I've proven that there cannot be any God of any type. I'll have to go post this in Danmark's thread asking, "Is there ANY scientific evidence could show there is no God?"

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 16 by For_The_Kingdom]

So if the standard is solely based on what humans have/haven't observed, then we shouldn't believe in abiogenesis either...

By the same extension, we humans cannot not observe the big bang either. The concept of the big bang is extrapolated from the observation that the universe is expanding. Which leads to the overwhelming conclusion that at one time everything in the universe was much closer to itself. This has led to the concept of the initial singularity, at which point, theoretically, all of the matter in the universe existed in a a state of infinite density, and space and time as we understand it did not exist. But this condition cannot be observed either, which is why it is only a concept.

I might also add, the echo of the big bang, which physicists theorized should still be detectable, turned out to be fairly easy to detect.

The evidence leads us to certain conclusions, you see.

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. All observation invariably shows that every effect is preceded by a cause. Anything else is conjecture.

...and abiogenesis is the default position of anyone who rejects theism.

The evidence indicates that life is the product of the ongoing process of organic chemistry, driven LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, by the phenomena of quantum mechanics; matter interacting with itself by being either attracted or repelled, according to the nature of positive or negative charges. That really is all that quantum mechanics is. The tendency of certain fundamental energetic bits (quanta] to vibrate at frequencies referred to as positive or negative, and either attract or repel other quantum bits. This results in an unending condition of attraction/repulsion, which is the driving force behind all change. Matter/energy interacts with itself. All observation so far indicates that this is a natural process. No supernatural cause is apparent, or apparently needed.

The only problem with that is, one of them have to be right, and the other one wrong (necessarily right/wrong).

There are two methods for determining how the universe operates. One is the empirical method which relies on direct observation and experimentation. The other is the "make it up and declare it to be true" method which leans on assumption, assertion, dogma, and extolling the virtues of faith. One method led to the dark ages, and the other one has led to our current technological society. Which has the better track record for being accurate? Because, clearly one method proved itself to be "right," and one method proved itself to be "wrong."

There are both logical/scientific problems with the naturalistic worldview...in other words, neither logic nor science supports it...therefore, supernaturalism wins by default.

Assertion, assumption and faith....versus E=MC². What you are claiming is rather like throwing rocks at a flying supersonic jet fighter. Although I will agree that many of the discoveries that science has made are NOT intuitive. Relativity, for example, is difficult to conceptualize.

So, "we should only see it in order to believe it"...textbook example of a non sequitur.

Science is founded on empirical observation. "Make it up and declare it to be true" is founded on assumptions and unfounded declarations concerning the reason for cause. Which is why there was no electronic technology in ancient times.

The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. If you go into your living room and see a horse standing there, you don't assume that the horse popped into being, uncaused out of nothing...

Before we can examine this assertion we will have to examine a condition where something spontaneously arose from nothing, according to your definition of "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.

Please provide an example of something which came into existence where nothing existed before.

The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

It is observed that every effect is preceded by a cause.


...and if someone told you that that was the case, you would think the person is crazy.

People sincerely believe that that the Earth once stopped rotating for 24 hours, because it says so in the Book of Joshua. People sincerely believe that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away, because it says so in the NT. Are all of these people crazy? In fact religious beliefs are one cause of insanity.

Scientific American
How Do You Distinguish between Religious Fervor and Mental Illness?
It's not meant as insult to believers; the two states of mind can share many similar characteristics

By Nathaniel P. Morris on December 22, 2016
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mi ... l-illness/

Natural laws come into effect ONLY after the universe began to exist.

This statement represents a classic example of "make it up and declare it to be true." Since matter/energy interacts with itself it is a possibility that the laws of physics which we observe were dictated by the sum total and type of quantum energy that is contained in the visible universe. But since we can't yet discern other universes (or states of existence), we can't really fully quantify our own state of existence, much less other possible states of existence.

Second, you can believe in all the science you want, but science cannot contradict logic...in fact, we depend on science being logical.

Science often serves to dictate logic. For example, is it "logical" that a couple of bottles of beer contain enough energy to destroy an entire city?

Wikipedia
Little Boy
When 1 pound (0.45 kg) of uranium-235 undergoes complete fission, the yield is 8 kilotons. The 16 kiloton yield of the Little Boy (Hiroshima) bomb was therefore produced by the fission of 2 pounds (0.91 kg) of uranium-235, out of the 141 pounds (64 kg) in the pit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

The Hiroshima bomb was very nearly a failure. Of the 141 pounds of processed uranium, only 2 pounds actually underwent nuclear fission. And yet it still made quite a mess of Hiroshima.

E=MC² tells us that E (energy)= M (mass). There is enough inherent energy in a couple of bottles of beer, if released all at once, that the release of energy would destroy a large city. Is that logical? Not at first glance. Is it a "non sequitur? It happens to have been proven to be true to the exclusion of all possible doubt.


Hiroshma atomic shadows

[William]

[Replying to post 20 by Willum]

For example, we don't have to assume the Big Bang created everything. Since this is true, it is uncaused.

What is uncaused?

Are you positing that the BB never happened, or that everything we know exists, was not caused by the BB?

In this are you saying that the idea that everything in the universe was contained in the infinitesimally small object of infinite density prior to the BB is incorrect because some atoms existed outside of that?
Not to forget that the theory itself claims that the object of infinite density prior to the BB was smaller than any single atom.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by William]

For simplicity's sake, I am calling attention to the idea that not everything needed to have the BB as its origin.
Since this is true, it is entirely possibly that some hydrogen atoms have been unchanged since before the BB.
Just for concept's sake really.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

It can be popular, and wrong. Since you brought it up, is that what THEY (physicists) are saying?

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.

Right, so, are you (according to the theory) stating that our universe came from "eternally existing energy which gave rise to things like our universe"?

Do I understand you correctly...because if that is what you are saying, then that concept doesn't violate any 3 of my intuition points..namely, that the universe did NOT come from nothing.

It doesn't matter how you think the universe got here, just as long as you aren't saying that it (universe) popped in to being, uncaused, out of nothing.

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

I think you need a highly structured God for "anything" to exist, besides God himself.

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

Bingo, amigo!!

I think quantum fields always existing makes far more sense.

How does quantum fields make more sense...can quantum fields give you life, consciousness, and language. Nope.

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

Pleaseeee, do explain how the existence of a highly complex sentient God logically impossible.

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

I can conceive of a highly complex sentient God. What can be conceived cannot be deemed impossible.

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

MOA..nah...the next episode.

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.

I can prove it is impossible for quantum fields to exist, and absolutely positively necessary for a complex, sentient God to have always existed...and I can prove it in a very elegant way.

But before I do that, we have to get past this "universe from nothing" nonsense.

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

Christianity has nothing to do with the KCA. Keep those straw men away from me.

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.

The case for Christian theism is a systematic, cumulative case...and it is not meant to say "which" god..but rather "a" god.

This is the kind of argument you turn to only after you realized that there is no compelling arguments for the scriptural theology.

Are you speaking for yourself?

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.

Then you are in the land of absurdity.

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.

Never mind the "sins" talk.

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.

We will come back to it on the next thread.

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".

Right, I was baited and deterred by you to talk about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the KCA.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Can we all just agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause

If you mean everything that begins to exist has a material cause, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Material or otherwise.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Can we all just agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause?

Well, no, virtual particles springs to mind.

In other words, things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING.

But what about things that pop into being, uncaused, out of a vacuum?

I don't believe that those particles come from nothing...and to say otherwise is to use the Copehenagen intepretation of quantum physics, which is only one interpretation out of over 10..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... _mechanics

And no one knows which interpretation is correct. Of course, to the atheist, it doesn't matter how absurd an idea is, just as long as it isn't the "G" word.

Second, again, if those particles come from nothing, then we are right back to the philosophical problem, of why is it that only particles come from nothing, and not anything else??

Now, you answered "I don't know" to this question...but you don't know, not because there is an answer that you are ignorant of..but because it is impossible...the state of "nothingness" doesn't have any conditions that will exclusively allow X and not Y.

That would be analogous to a completely empty/void universe...with literally nothing exists but space in this eternally existing vast empty space..then suddenly, a moose pops into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

Why a moose? Why not a tree? Why not a chair? How can "nothing" be "exclusive" to particular "somethings"? Makes no sense.

Are you using "state of nothingness" interchangeably with quantum vacuum? If so, then why would you think there isn't any pre-conditions that will only allow X to pop in to being, and not Y or Z?

How can a quantum vacuum (something), be interchangeable with "nothingness" (nothing). Makes no sense. So to answer your question, no, I am not using the concepts interchangeably.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The sanest step in demonstrating premise 1 should be a given, axiomatically, is to ask the question "Do we have an example of anything truly 'beginning to exist?'" That is, something not given rise to from pre-existing matter/energy.

Well, my argument as a whole is simple; there was a point in time at which literally, nothing "physical" existed. There was a point at which space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) did not exist.

I am gonna prove this point throughout this thread. So yes, we have an example of something truly "beginning to exist"...and we are living in it: the universe.

I suspect FotK would jump to premise 2 here and offer up the universe

I couldn't have predicted that one better myself.

, leaving premise 1 flopping about and gasping for air while giving this second premise an earlier-than- intended beating as well.

You say that as if you offered a defeater of P1. You didn't.

Even rolling my eyes and granting the first premise, you're forever stuck on premise 2.

If you grant P1, then there is nothing else to talk about. See you on the P2 thread.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 16 by For_The_Kingdom]

How predictably boring, Kingdom.

How did I know abiogenesis would make an appearance in a thread with nothing to do with it?

It was relevant.

By the way, just because a point goes sailing over your head doesn't make said point a non-sequitir. When you say something is non-sequitir, the rest of us understand it's just a point you can't or won't deal with.

I just call an ace an ace, and a spade a spade.

Lastly, who made you the arbiter of when natural laws do and don't hold? Can you demonstrate the conservation of energy is invalid prior to inflation? No you cannot. You're derailing your own doomed thread far ahead of schedule.

I disagree.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 29 by For_The_Kingdom]

I don't care if you disagree. I asked you a question. Can you demonstrate conservation of energy is invalid prior to inflation or not?