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.

[FarWanderer]

[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.

I fail to see how the former is a worse theory than the latter. We at least know that non-life material exists and has causal efficacy. We cannot say the same for the latter (except by begging the question).

So to link back to the original point, there may be a certain measure of faith involved in a naturalistic explanation because there is never a certain guarantee that a natural explanation even exists, but at least the naturalistic viewpoint actual builds on knowledge we DO have.

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

Ahhh, not necessarily, amigo. Not necessarily.

Its either infinite regress or special pleading. A prime mover like God is a special pleading.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 71 by For_The_Kingdom]

It isn't the theists who are entertaining the idea that things can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing.

Having an alleged magical being twitch its metaphysical nose and cause things to appear out of nothing is not really all that different.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

SMH.

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

Me.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause?

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

I agree, in principal.

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.

Man can walk on the moon, but man can't deal with one P at a time?

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!

Would you challenge the claim of me stating that the cause of your shattered windshield is a brick which popped to existence out of nothing and dropped on top of your windshield.

Would you challenge that?

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.

I didn't know that I was supposed to do anything to show it. I thought it was one of those "it goes without saying" kind of things. I guess I was wrong.

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.

I demonstrated why the concept is absurd. Address those points, please.

Then who's God's God?

Such an elementary question. Are atheists still asking this?

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

Hey, watch what you say about Emperor Trump.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 80 by Divine Insight]

So, you ignore my post about you jumping ahead of the pack, while continuing to jump ahead of the pack. SMH.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I fail to see how the former is a worse theory than the latter. We at least know that non-life material exists and has causal efficacy. We cannot say the same for the latter (except by begging the question).

So to link back to the original point, there may be a certain measure of faith involved in a naturalistic explanation because there is never a certain guarantee that a natural explanation even exists, but at least the naturalistic viewpoint actual builds on knowledge we DO have.

At least you admit that there is indeed a measure of faith involved...and that is enough for me. I appreciate your honesty.

Its either infinite regress or special pleading. A prime mover like God is a special pleading.

Stay tuned..

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 71 by For_The_Kingdom]

It isn't the theists who are entertaining the idea that things can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing.

Having an alleged magical being twitch its metaphysical nose and cause things to appear out of nothing is not really all that different.

When the magician twitches its metaphysical nose and causes a rabbit to appear, at least we can say that the magician exists and caused the rabbit to appear, even if we don't know how he did it.

On the naturalistic view, there is no magician, the rabbit just pops in to being, uncaused, out of nothing. LOL!!!

If you don't see the absurdity in the latter, I can't help you.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 80 by Divine Insight]

So, you ignore my post about you jumping ahead of the pack, while continuing to jump ahead of the pack. SMH.

I'm sorry to be so far ahead of you. Let me know when you catch up.

[William]

[Replying to post 87 by Divine Insight]

I'm sorry to be so far ahead of you. Let me know when you catch up.

i sincerely think - from what I am reading, that this will not occur.

[wiploc]

All I am saying is; everything that begins to exist has a cause.

But why are you saying it?

There is nothing logically/scientifically that can tell us otherwise.

Science isn't on your side. Scientists generally believe that virtual particles begin uncaused. Thus, uncaused begun things happen all the time.

That's the opinion of science. If you have a better opinion, you have to explain why science is wrong, which is different from claiming to be on science's side.

[wiploc]

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".

Not me. That's not my position. My position is that existence either had a beginning or is an infinite regress.

Since neither of those is palatable, we don't get to say, "I don't like X, so Y must be true." So, unless we can really eliminate one, they both have to be counted as possibilities.

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

Gods, if they exist, are part of the universe. They are part of everything that exists. If we're asking where everything came from, it's obvious that nothing else could have started it.

There can't be something in addition to everything. So there can't be anything that caused everything.