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]

My definition as an aspect of that consciousness experiencing being human, from that perspective, yes.
The materialist theory of evolution doesn't conflict with that at all.
Indeed - when I was young I never thought about it. Then I went through the Abrahamic rendition of 'how life became' which was impressive in relation to 'a GOD created it all' then I moved beyond that rather limited idea and engaged with the theory of evolution WITH a creative mind involved with that process, which super-impressed me, as if I wasn't impressed enough at the idea of mindful creation to begin with.

That's fine. However, just because you were personally impressed with something doesn't make it so.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 49 by William]


It's no secret your posts on galactic entities and first source consciousness make me insane. Perhaps it's when you say things like "I understand X to be such and such" instead of "here's my wild ass guess on how stuff works."

So that I don't continually feel tempted to go flying off the handle every time you post, I wonder if you'd at least acknowledge that none of it can be demonstrated to be true.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 46 by FarWanderer]

Abiogenesis (a.k.a. non-biological genesis) is the default position, period. Even theists believe that life came from something non-biological. Unless they define God as "biological"

I think of myself as a theist but I also think GOD = Consciousness, and it is consciousness which is life. Matter is dead - has no life without consciousness.

Wikipedia
Planarian
A planarian is one of many flatworms of the Turbellaria class.

Some planarian species have two eye-spots (also known as ocelli) that can detect the intensity of light, while others have several eye-spots. The eye-spots act as photoreceptors and are used to move away from light sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian

A planarian worm has photosensitive cells which allows the worm to determine lighted areas from darker areas. This allows the worm to make decisions about whether to move into the light looking for food, or to remain in the dark where it is safe. The planarian is equipped to make informed decisions. Informed decisions represents consciousness.

Does the planarian worm derive this consciousness from God? Or could it represent an evolutionary advantage that creatures without photosensitive cells do not possess?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

Geez, DI...were you that one kid that just couldn't sit still, no matter what? You are jumping ahead of the pack. This thread focuses primarily on P1 of the argument, which is everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Nothing more, nothing less. Bring all of that other smoke to the other thread.

Capeesh?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

So in essence, we couldn't have possibly observed the big bang itself, but we have evidence supporting it based on observation? Sounds like science to me.

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.

But see, there is no extrapolated observations one can make which would lead you to that conclusion, unlike the case with the big bang. You simply have to believe it (abiogenesis) by faith..not by science.

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.

All I am saying is; everything that begins to exist has a cause. There is nothing logically/scientifically that can tell us otherwise.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

Geez, DI...were you that one kid that just couldn't sit still, no matter what? You are jumping ahead of the pack. This thread focuses primarily on P1 of the argument, which is everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Nothing more, nothing less. Bring all of that other smoke to the other thread.

Capeesh?

Well, your question isn't clear as others have pointed out.

Is your premise that everything that physically begins to exist has a physical cause?

Are you demanding that everything that physically exists has an 'intentional' cause.

Like I said, we all know where you are attempting to go with this. So why not cut to the chase and just confess that you are trying to make an argument for the existence of an intelligent creator that eternally exists.

I've already blown that out of the water. So why not address that, since we all know that this is where you are hoping to end up anyway?

People have already given you an answer. Quantum field that eternally exist could be the cause of the Big Bang and our physical universe. No intelligent creator required.

I think you just don't like my answers because they don't require the conclusions that you would rather jump to.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Then you need to give us a reason to believe in P1. Otherwise, welcome to the swamp.

So, I need to give you a reason to believe that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing?

Ok, so how about this...if you just bought a brand new car (your favorite car)...and after you bought it, you are at home, chillin on the couch, watching tv..and your car is parked in front of your house.

As you are laid back, chillin...suddenly, you hear a loud shattering of glass outside..and you run outside to see what happened.

And once you get outside, you see your windshield completely shattered (no windowshield)..and you see a huge brick on the dashboard.

You ask me, "Bro, did you see who threw that brick through the windshield of my car".

And I say, "Bro, the crazy thing about it is; no one threw the brick..I was walking down the street, and as I walked past your car, a huge brick literally came out of NOWHERE, and dropped directly on your windshield. I seen it with my own eyes".

Will you accept my explanation? Yes or no?

If you accept my explanation as to what happened, then please leave me to my supernatural fantasies, as I will leave you to your natural fantasies (even though it wouldn't be "natural", but you catch my drift), and we can keep it moving.

If you won't accept my explanation as to what happened, then you need not ask me to prove P1 of the argument, which states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, implying that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

Just as soon as you give a persuasive justification for P1.

So, we are chilling at my crib, watching the Detroit Lions destroy the Green Bay Packers on a typical Sunday evening. We got girls, drinks, and food..living the life.

Then suddenly, we all hear a loud POP. The "pop" is so loud, our ears are ringing..and you ask me..

"Bro, where did that loud pop come from"?

And I say "Ahhh, it came from nothing. Now shut up and watch the game".

Will you accept my answer? Yes or no? If yes, then I will leave you to your natural fantasies, while you leave me to my supernatural fantasies.

If no, then you need not ask me to make a justification for P1, which implies that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

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 would be quite the assumption.

Well, when you want to keep the "G" word (God) out of the equation at all costs, I guess so.

Either we have an infinite regress, or we have an uncaused beginning.

I agree..I think.

If your god can happen uncaused, why can't the rest of the universe? If the rest of the universe cannot happen uncaused, why can your god?

If nothing but gods come from nothing, then why does your god get to do so?

Not the time or place for this discussion...despite it being a easy question to answer.

I'm not taking a position on whether things come from nothing, or on whether things need causes. (I note that you seem to conflate these two issues.)

I certainly DON'T conflate the two.

I am willing to be persuaded on either point.

The fact that you are willing to either entertain the former, says a lot.

Will you handle P2 the way you handle P1? "Come on, why doesn't everybody just agree with me?"

Pretty much, yeah. "Come on, why can't everybody just agree with me that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of complete nothingness".

If we disagree on everything else, we should at least be able to agree with that.

[Inigo Montoya]

It's one thing to say everything that exists has a cause. By adding "begins" to "exist," you've structured a tautology.

Everything that starts..has..a..start.

Brilliant.

Logically this seems fine, which is to say definitionally. What isn't fine is that there's no reason to accept this mirrors reality. So as a premise it's valid in form, but unevidenced by any observation. There's no reason to accept the premise beyond being intuitive or linguistically coherent.

Your entire "pop into existence" line of reasoning is silly on two fronts. One, it ignores matter and energy simply always existing. Two, presumably, you'll need your god to do some poofing into existence at some point down the road.

By way of example, FotK attempts to provide support for premise one basically by asserting premise 2 as true.

That's just not how this game is played.

And it is a game, see. One day I hope it will be acknowledged how far the theist has a fallen when appeals to valid syllogism represent their strongest ammo.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

Every effect which comes into being*

Every effect has a cause, by definition. That's what an effect is.

To argue that some things don't have causes is to argue that they are not effects.

Yet in the other thread, you act as if you need justification for P1, when, in this post, you just said that every "effect" has a cause...well, if the universe popped in to being out of nothing, isn't than an effect? Doesn't it need a cause?

Hmm.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

You wouldn't ever do that yourself, right? You wouldn't, for instance, claim that nothingness can't have preconditions, or that it can't produce uncaused things like universes? No, you are dead set against putting conditions on nothingness.

No, because nothingness is the "lack" of a condition. Now, if you want to say that a "lack of a condition" is still "conditional" (which kinda makes sense), then fine.

Still doesn't violate any of my three intuition points..

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