The Kal�m Cosmological Argument

[McCulloch]

The Kal�m Cosmological Argument consists of two premises and a conclusion.

• KA. Everything that begins to exist has a cause or Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
• KB. The universe began to exist.
• KC. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Using a series of sound and valid logical arguments, ToKnowHim, will show in turn, that both of the premises of the KCA are true. And that KC, the conclusion of the KCA, is therefore true.

The principle that for a thing or concept to be accepted, there must be:

1. Empirical evidence for it;
2. Repeatable tests of it; and/or
3. A logical argument to support it.

If a thing or concept fails all three of those criteria, it means that we must be skeptical of that thing.

[McCulloch]

Ok. Energy has existed FOR ALL TIME; but time itself is not infinite. Therefore, time began 'at some point in time'.

Let me remind everyone that

The word ‘begin’/‘began’/‘beginning’ of a thing means that before its ‘beginning,’ it did not exist at all in any sense whatsoever.

There is no time when energy has not existed. Energy has not, according to our agree upon terms, begun to exist. There was no time before the earliest point in time when energy did not exist. Things that have always existed do not need to have a cause.

The word ‘cause’/‘caused’ is used with its dictionary definition:

: something or someone that produces an effect, result, or condition : something or someone that makes something happen or exist
[...]
1 a : a reason for an action or condition : motive
b : something that brings about an effect or a result
[...]


Cause is used here as defined in item 1b.

We have agreed that the word cause means something that that makes something happen. Things that happen are called events. Events happen in time.

[ToKnowHim]

You wrote:

There is no time when energy has not existed. Energy has not, according to our agreed upon terms, begun to exist. There was no time before the earliest point in time when energy did not exist. Things that have always existed do not need to have a cause.

I can agree with this. If there was no time before the earliest point in time when energy did not exist, then it has existed as long as time itself has existed. Therefore, it has 'always' existed, insofar as natural, linear time has existed.

But as I said, time itself is not infinite. A thing that is not infinite has a beginning. Since you've at least tentatively agreed that things that begin to exist seem to have causes, time's beginning, by definition, also must be caused.

[McCulloch]

If there was no time before the earliest point in time when energy did not exist, then it has existed as long as time itself has existed. Therefore, it has 'always' existed, insofar as natural, linear time has existed.

Are you proposing that there is some other form of time? Energy has always existed. No little quote marks; no qualifiers. There has never been a time when energy did not exist. Energy did not begin to exist. Remember that for something to begin to exist, there has to be a time when it did not exist.

But as I said, time itself is not infinite. A thing that is not infinite has a beginning.

This is perhaps where we disagree. Anything that has existed for all time cannot, by definition, have a beginning. In fact, much of what we are discussing cannot be applied to time itself. Time does not exist, in the sense that we defined existence. Existence is defined in terms of time. Causation is defined in terms of time. A cause must precede the effect. Time therefore cannot be caused, since there can be nothing that precedes time itself.

Since you've at least tentatively agreed that things that begin to exist seem to have causes, time's beginning, by definition, also must be caused.

I have indeed agreed that things that begin to exist may be caused (there are some things which apparently did begin to exist on a quantum level with no apparent cause), but I have not agreed that time is a thing. Time is part of the framework that contains things, not a thing itself.

[ToKnowHim]

Here I think we have our first major disagreement; most of what's passed before has been you educating me (thank you!) on how things actually work in the universe as we know it.

However:

Time is indeed a thing which exists. It is measurable; we can perform repeatable tests on it; we have empirical evidence of it. Time cannot be 'merely' a construct of human thought, otherwise there would have been no 'time' until we conceived of it; this is a ludicrous position to take. We know, fairly certainly, that the universe has been here for billions of years before we were. Therefore, time was passing before we existed.

If time is a thing and time is not infinite, then time itself has a beginning. The question then becomes, does time exist?

There seems to be a debate among scientists on this very question. Certainly in regards to quantum theory, time may not factor in; however, the question is still open for debate among scientists.

Unless and until we have some empirical evidence and/or repeatable tests demonstrating that time is, in fact, only a product of our minds and therefore irrelevant to anything, I must remain skeptical, and affirm that time does indeed exist.

[McCulloch]

Time is indeed a thing which exists.

No, time is the framework by which things exist. Time is certainly not only a product of our minds and it immensely relevant to all that exists. Things exist in time. Time defines existence, therefore time itself cannot be said to exist.

[ToKnowHim]

If time did not exist, things would not exist. Entropy is essential to existence as we know it.

Time is not infinite. Time therefore has a beginning. Any thing which begins has a cause. Time began. Time has a cause.

What you seem to be saying is that time 'just is.' It doesn't exist, but it's there. It's real, but doesn't exist; rather, everything else exists because time is the framework in which it exists.

Yet... anything that can be measured, anything which can be tested, anything which has a beginning, can indeed be argued to exist, under the definitions provided here. If time does not exist, then the big bang could be said to have happened 13 seconds ago or 50 billion years ago or tomorrow. Time definitions have no meaning or purpose without an actual, existing timeframe.

Now, this may sound like an argument to consequence, but I'm trying to make a point. Time exists. As far as I can understand them, the Einstein equations rely on time existing as a thing.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 46 by ToKnowHim]

Premise 1: For a thing to begin, there must have been a time when that thing did not exist.
Premise 2: There has never been a time when time did not exist.
Conclusion: Time is not a thing that has begun.

Premise 1 comes from our agreed upon definitions. Premise 2 is blatantly self evident. The conclusion follows from the premises. Which do you disagree with: Premise 1, Premise 2 or the validity of the logic?

[ToKnowHim]

I disagree with premise 2.

Your argument is structured logically, so I have no problem there, but Premise 2 presents a very real problem, both logically and otherwise.

If Premise 2 is correct, then time is infinite. If that is the case, then I would expect to be presented with empirical evidence and/or repeatable tests demonstrating that fact. Failing that, I am skeptical of time being infinite.

In fact, you have stated more than once that time is not infinite:

But time itself is finite...

You now seem to be contradicting yourself. Either time is finite or infinite. This is not a false dichotomy. If it is infinite, provide proof of that. Failing that, I'll stick with my position that time is finite -- and the proposition that finite things have beginnings.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 48 by ToKnowHim]

Premise 2: there has never been a time when time did not exist.

Let us assume that this is false. There is a time when time did not exist. Let us then call that time, when there is no time T_n. T_n is a time. Therefore, time does exist at T_n. This is a contradiction. Therefore our assumption must be false. Our assumption was that premise 2 was false. Therefore premise 2 must be true.

Does this mean that time must be infinite? I don't think so. Time is finite. There is no time before the earliest point in time. Not all finite things have a beginning.

[ToKnowHim]

I still think your position is internally inconsistent. A finite thing, by definition, has bounds (beginning and ending). Take measurement as an example. The circumference of the earth is 24,901 miles (40,075 km). You begin at one point and end at one point (albeit the same point).

One thing to consider is that time actually exists, as a thing. E=MC2 relies upon this. C = the speed of light. First, light must exist. It does. Then, it must travel at a given rate. It does.

But rate requires time. Without time, rate is meaningless. Duration is an integral part of Einstein's equations; without duration, they fall apart.

I am about to conduct an Appeal to Authority:

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

Steven Hawking, The Beginning of Time
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Now this is most likely not an erroneous nor fallacious Appeal to Authority; after all, Steven Hawking is, if not THE foremost mind in terms of science, one of the top ten. He's certainly more expert on the subject than you or I.

Time had a beginning. 'Nuff said.