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.

[wiploc]

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.

Why don't you leave that smoke for the other thread?

[wiploc]

If the particles come from "something" as opposed to "nothing", then why are we (me and you) having this discussion.

Could it be because you insist that you don't conflate coming from nothing with being uncaused?

[wiploc]

... uncaused effects, can not be substantiated.

They are a linguistic impossibility. Nothing uncaused can be an effect.

[wiploc]

So, why aren't things popping into being out of nothing right now?

Is it your position that gods are popping out of nothing right now?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

I agree, we agree. As long as we agree to this point, I shouldn't hear from you until the next thread.

Except that you said THIS:

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.

Once you have provided an example of this having ever occured that isn't derived from your imagination, than we can move forward with the discussion.

Bro..again I ask; have you been following the thread..at all? I doubt it, considering you are asking me to provide an example of the (my) very contention of the entire thread!!

People, it is ok if we agree on something. If we agree that the concept of a universe popping into existence out of nothing is logically absurd, then there is no need in fighting over..agreements..of all things.

A cursory glance at the thread clearly indicates that no one seems to be buying what FtK is cooking.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 86 by For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Cart before the horse. First demonstrate that your magician actually exists, then you can move on to the question of how he made something out of nothing.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Right, so go back to premise 1.

Well for one, if that is what you meant, then there was no point in you chiming in on it any way...

What do you mean? It's an attack on premise 1.

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.

Well, we don't agree, not on premise 1.

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.

He has made it clear what he meant by "nothingness," I thought it's not worth arguing what "nothing" means and stick to vacuum.

So, are you saying that things come out of the vacuum, but FROM nothing?

No, I am saying things pops out of the vacuum uncaused.

First I am saying that those physical entities (particles) don't come "from nothing" (if I have you correct above)

That much we argee on. But you don't seem to agree that physical entities (particles) do come from vacuum uncaused.

and I am saying that there are no pre-conditions that will allow X to pop in to being and not Y or Z.

Wait, there are no pre-conditions what so ever, or no pre-conditions given nothingness?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 80 by Divine Insight]

Apparently you ain't getting it. See you in the next thread, if you choose to meet me there.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

So your position isn't against anything that I said, yet, here we are having this discussion. SMH.

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.

Straw man...since that is not what I said or implied.

Gods, if they exist, are part of the universe.

Non sequitur.

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.

Unsupported assertions.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 86 by For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Cart before the horse. First demonstrate that your magician actually exists, then you can move on to the question of how he made something out of nothing.

We're not there yet. This thread isn't about any magicians yet, it is about whether or not my three intuition points are violated..

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

Which they aren't.