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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Are you saying that if the universe began to exist, it wouldn't have a cause?

I'll say that. If the whole universe (all of existence) had a beginning, there wouldn't be anything else to act as a cause.

So basically, you are saying "Hey man, I am all for the idea of the universe popping into being, uncaused, out of nothing".

SMH. Anything but the "G" word, right?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 40 by William]

I gotta hand it to ya, William..at least you are consistent. I mean, this isn't the first time you made a post where I am left scratching my head, like "Huh"?

*Shrugs* Just letting you know, that I do try. LOL.

[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.

OK. An argument:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a material cause.

Gotta disagree with ya there; based on the positive case that I have (and will present) that it is logically/scientifically impossible for the universe to have a material cause.

P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a material cause.

I assume you, being a theist, disagree with this argument. And since you already have implied that you believe P2 is true, then it must be P1 with which you disagree.

Impressive.

So, on what grounds should we not believe "everything that begins to exist has a material cause"?

Wait a minute, if you say "everything that begins to exist has a material cause", then you apparently agree with my P1 (its implication) that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

Because such a concept violates your P1, correct?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[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.

So if the standard is solely based on what humans have/haven't observed, then we shouldn't believe in abiogenesis either...and abiogenesis is the default position of anyone who rejects theism.

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

Well, abiogenesis is the idea that material (natural) life came from material (natural) nonlife.

Theists believe that material (natural) life came from immaterial (supernatural) life.

That is a night/day difference there.

Any worldview that assumes causality will have "logical problems".

Ahhh, not necessarily, amigo. Not necessarily.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I don't believe that those particles come from nothing...

Hence the word "vacuum" instead of "nothing." This whole section about "nothing" is moot.

If the particles come from "something" as opposed to "nothing", then why are we (me and you) having this discussion. If you agree with me on that point...then we don't need to debate stuff that we agree on.

How can a quantum vacuum (something), be interchangeable with "nothingness" (nothing). Makes no sense.

You tell me, I said "vacuum" and you went off on and on about "nothing." Why would you do that if the terms are not interchangeable?

Well for one, if that is what you meant, then there was no point in you chiming in on it any way...I had let it be known what exactly my point of contention is, and if you agree with me, then just say "I agree" and we can keep it moving.

Second, within the past decade, guys like Lawrence Krauss has popularized the equivocation of "nothing", as it relates to the quantum vacuum. He doesn't use the word in the traditional "nothingness" sense, but nothing/the vacuum interchangeably (sometimes he uses it in the traditional sense, and sometimes he doesn't), which is what I thought you were doing.

If I had you wrong, my apologies.

So to answer your question, no, I am not using the concepts interchangeably.

Okay, so care to address what I said then? What about things that pop into being, uncaused, out of a vacuum?

So, are you saying that things come out of the vacuum, but FROM nothing? If that is what you are saying, then the same answer I gave before applies. Philosophical problem.

Would you suggest there are no pre-conditions in a vacuum that will only allow X to pop in to being, and not Y or Z?

First I am saying that those physical entities (particles) don't come "from nothing" (if I have you correct above), and I am saying that there are no pre-conditions that will allow X to pop in to being and not Y or Z.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

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.

Yup.

Wikipedia
Science
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Science attempts to understand the processes by which the universe operates through empirical observation.

Wikipedia
Empirical evidence
Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Science learns (acquires knowledge) by studying the evidence at hand. The evidence at hand has led to the concept of the big bang (The universe is currently expanding; echos of the big bang are still detectable).

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.

Wikipedia
Organic chemistry
Organic chemistry is the chemistry subdiscipline for the scientific study of structure, properties, and reactions of organic compounds and organic materials (materials that contain carbon atoms).[1] Study of structure determines their chemical composition and formula. Study of properties includes physical and chemical properties, and evaluation of chemical reactivity to understand their behavior. The study of organic reactions includes the chemical synthesis of natural products, drugs, and polymers, and study of individual organic molecules in the laboratory and via theoretical (in silico) study.

Organic compounds form the basis of all earthly life and constitute the majority of known chemicals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

Organic chemistry is the empirical study of how organic compounds, which are themselves composed of inorganic non living elements, combine through natural processes (quantum mechanics again) to form living things.

ignorantia non excusat

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

What you actually said was:

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.

What you haven't done is provide an example of this actually occurring which wasn't the product of conjecture. Direct observation indicates that every effect is preceded by a direct cause without exception. Coming into being from a state of non being has no precedence in our observations.

[William]

[Replying to post 62 by For_The_Kingdom]

No problem FTK

As long as you are genuinely trying to comprehend, that is far better than simply willfully ignoring.

Perhaps the penny will drop one day. Resistance is futile.
Perhaps you might consider suspending all belief. That is the most likely way you will be able to comprehend otherwise 'foreign' concepts.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

Isn't clear? In the OP, I said..

1. Everything that beings to exist has a cause

Implication: in other words, things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING.

You need me to be more clear than that?

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

Physical or otherwise...intentional or otherwise.

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?

Small steps, not leaps and bounds.

People have already given you an answer. Quantum field that eternally exist could be the cause of the Big Bang and our physical universe.

Right, people have been bold enough to state that our universe could have popped into being, out of nothing, in a quantum field. And I am saying that such an answer is logically flawed and it is only provided because, as you say here..

No intelligent creator required.

The idea is to keep God out of the equation at all costs?^ As irrational as the explanation is on its own merits, it is driven by the high drive to simply keep God out of it, no matter how irrational the "replacement" explanation is.

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

I don't like any answers that lead to logical absurdities.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 68 by For_The_Kingdom]

Isn't clear? In the OP, I said..

1. Everything that beings to exist has a cause

Implication: in other words, things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of NOTHING.

You need me to be more clear than that?

Everyone here has pretty much agreed that such a thing, uncaused effects, can not be substantiated. YOU are the one declaring that it is possible to arise "from a "state" (for lack of better term) of non being and/or non existence."

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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

You'll be hard pressed to prove the veracity of this claim.

2. The universe began to exist

And this'n.

Who can definitively prove the universe, like so many gods, didn't always exist, in one form or another?

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause?

Starting with faulty premises is apt to end up with faulty conclusions.

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

I propose then you shouldn't have added them extra Ps.

I'll not be bound to consider anything less than your entire OP.

I notice many theists are happy to argue parts of their claims, only don't it beat all, they so often present 'em a whole bunch of 'em.

I really hope we don't get too bogged down with the truth value of P1

The onus is on the claimant, not the one who challenges the claim.

I challenge your claim.

Show us you speak truth!

because the meat and potatoes is in P2.

You've produced nothing to show your P1 is any form of meat or tater, thus, trying to ignore the faults in your P1 is as goofy an idea as me getting married again.

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

Sure we can - when you show such a claim to be truth.

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..?

Then who's God's God?

If common sense was so reliable, we wouldn't have Trump as president.

I'm intuitin' some special pleading.

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

Then gods can't come them from nothing.

Who is God's God?

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.?

Indeed, your arguments leave shells scattered underfoot. Empty of their meat, unfit for human digestion.

Until you show your P1 is true, your following premises can't ever be shown to be truth.

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.

Heck, I'll pretend with ya.

Now all ya gotta do is show the universe began to exist.

Or we can rightly conclude your OP is an ugly, empty shell, devoid of it any meat, or taters.