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]

Response:
Actually, an argument might be made for gravity and principles of physics 'existing.' While it's true that gravity is a force we measure, rather than a tangible 'thing,' per se, gravity is THERE; we feel it; we can perform repeatable tests on it; there is empirical evidence of it. To that degree, at least, gravity 'exists,' though not the same way a tree exists.

Yes, indeed, gravity does exist in one sense of the word. However, gravity does not exist in the sense of our agreed upon meaning of the word. Gravity is a property of massive particles. Saying that gravity exists is like saying that red exists. Red can be measured, we can see red, we can perform repeatable tests with red. But red itself, like gravity, has no tangible existence.

One request: Please analyze EACH ARGUMENT on its own merit FIRST, unrelated to any other argument which has come before or after it.

Fair enough. I'll assess independent arguments independently.

My reasoning will become very clear, I promise.

I certainly hope so.

Second Argument:
Premise 3.
Natural things {gravity, quarks, principles of physics, energy, particles, etc.} exist.

Premise 4.
Some natural thing ‘x’ {gravity, quarks, principles of physics, energy, particles, etc.} has not always existed.

Conclusion 2.
Every natural thing that exists now began to exist at some point in time.

Here we have a logical failure.
Restated in terms closer to how logicians reason, you state:
The set of natural things is not an empty set.
Some natural things have not always existed.
Therefore, every natural thing began to exist.

This is not logically valid. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The second premise essentially divides the set of natural things into those which have always existed and those which have not always existed. And it states that the set of natural things that have not always existed is not an empty set. You then conclude that the set of natural things that have always existed is an empty set. There is no basis for that conclusion from the premises given.

Since we are dealing with each argument independently, I must repeat my objection about including gravity and the laws of physics as natural things.

[ToKnowHim]

Premise 3.
Natural things {quarks, energy, particles, etc.} exist.

Premise 4.
Some natural thing ‘x’ {quarks, energy, particles, etc.} has not always existed.

Conclusion 2.
Every natural thing that exists now began to exist at some point in time.

Ok, I'll remove gravity and principles of physics; I was trying to make a point concerning ALL natural things (and the force we call gravity IS a natural force).

I believe you missed my point here. Your statement might be better written as follows:

The set of natural things is not an empty set.
No natural thing 'x' has always existed.
Therefore, every natural thing began to exist.

The entire argument here for C2 is the exact antithesis of C1; it is an exercise in an argument reductio ad absurdum. C1 states that there is at least one natural thing 'x' which has always existed; C2 states its opposite, that there is no natural thing 'x' which has always existed.

Perhaps I stated it badly; if so, I'll rewrite my other arguments to match. However, the premise is still sound, and the conclusion follows. Does this clarify things, or do you still perceive a problem here?

[McCulloch]

Premise 3.
Natural things {quarks, energy, particles, etc.} exist.

Premise 4.
Some natural thing ‘x’ {quarks, energy, particles, etc.} has not always existed.

Conclusion 2.
Every natural thing that exists now began to exist at some point in time.

Ok, I'll remove gravity and principles of physics; I was trying to make a point concerning ALL natural things (and the force we call gravity IS a natural force).

I believe you missed my point here. Your statement might be better written as follows:

The set of natural things is not an empty set.
No natural thing 'x' has always existed.
Therefore, every natural thing began to exist.

I am with you as far as Premise 3. Natural things exist. We need not enumerate them. There are a vast number of natural things.

I am confused about Premise 4. The original version of premise 4 states that some natural things has [sic] not always existed. I read that as to say that there are some natural things which have not always existed. With this premise, as stated and understood by the standard rules of English grammar and syntax, I fully agree. There are natural things which exist now which at some point of time in the past did not exist.
But now you wish to restate premise 4 to mean that there are no natural things which have always existed. With this premise, I disagree. Energy, for example, cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form. All of the energy in the universe has existed for all time.

Conclusion 2 does indeed follow from the restated premise 4.

The entire argument here for C2 is the exact antithesis of C1; it is an exercise in an argument reductio ad absurdum. C1 states that there is at least one natural thing 'x' which has always existed; C2 states its opposite, that there is no natural thing 'x' which has always existed.

Perhaps I stated it badly; if so, I'll rewrite my other arguments to match. However, the premise is still sound, and the conclusion follows. Does this clarify things, or do you still perceive a problem here?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[ToKnowHim]

Hmmm... I perceive possible difficulties in this debate; well, that's to be expected.

This is a case of either-or; either there is at least one thing 'x' which has always existed, or not (which means that EVERY thing 'x' began to exist at some point).

There's no false dichotomy here. You state that energy cannot be created or destroyed; there needs to be empirical evidence and/or repeatable tests demonstrating that assertion.

C1 states that there is at least one thing 'x' which has always existed; under your assertion, energy would fall into this category.

C2 is the antithesis of C1, stating that there is NO thing 'x which has always existed. (It was worded that way the first time, but apparently confusingly).

Either C1 is true or C2 is true; both cannot be true simultaneously. What I'm seeking at the moment is a 'vote,' as it were, on the FORM of C2, not necessarily on its substance; in other words, if you can agree, even tacitly, that C2 is correct in form, then I can post my argument which devolves from C1 and C2, and you can address my logic there...

It's entirely possible that we may not be able to go further; however, I'd like to try. It may be that I need to adjust my arguments in some way. Certainly I'll work on making the wording more specific. In the mean time, however, I'm curious to know how you see C2 itself, logically, separate from anything else.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 14 by ToKnowHim]

Conclusion 1:

Premise 1. Natural things exist.
Premise 2. Some natural thing ‘x’ has always existed.
Conclusion 1. Every natural thing that exists now either began to exist at some point in time, or has always existed.

Rephrasing in terms of set theory:

1. Premise: The set of all natural things is not empty.
2. Premise: There exists at least one element of the set of all natural things, that has always existed.
3. Conclusion: The set of all natural things is the union of the set of all natural things which have always existed and the set of all natural things which began to exist.

This is logically sound. Premise one, needs no further discussion. Premise 2 is stated without evidence or support, so the truth of the conclusion depends on the truth of premise 2.

Conclusion 2

Premise 3. Natural things exist.
Premise 4. Some natural thing ‘x’ has not always existed.
Conclusion 2. Every natural thing that exists now began to exist at some point in time.

Rephrasing in terms of set theory:

1. Premise: The set of all natural things is not empty. [Identical to Premise 1 above]
2. Premise: There exists at least one element of the set of all natural things, that has not always existed.
3. Conclusion: Every natural thing that exists now began to exist at some point in time.

This is not logically sound. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Conclusion 2 [Rewritten by ToKnowHim]

The set of natural things is not an empty set.
No natural thing 'x' has always existed.
Therefore, every natural thing began to exist.

Rephrasing in terms of set theory:

1. Premise: The set of all natural things is not empty. [Identical to Premise 1 above]
2. Premise: The set of natural things that has always existed is empty.
3. Conclusion: Every natural thing that exists now began to exist at some point in time.

This is logically sound. If there are no natural things that have always existed, then every natural thing that exists began to exist. In this set of arguments, premise 2 is the negation of premise 2 from the first set of arguments. Pulling out all of the redundancy and logical flaws, the argument boils down to this:
Either there is some natural thing that has always existed or there is no natural thing that has always existed.
(combining premise 2 from each set of arguments)

[ToKnowHim]

Hey, you got it! (I'm not the least bit surprised; you seem to be quite a bit more intelligent than I am; at the very least, you know quite a bit more about mathematics, set theory, and so on, stuff I'm hazy on at best).

I think that it's evident that I badly phrased my arguments. My sincere apologies for that. I am, as yet, a beginning student of informal logic, and I trip over myself occasionally trying to make difficult what should be simple (and vice-versa).

You said:

Rephrasing in terms of set theory:
P3: The set of all natural things is not empty. [Identical to Premise 1 above]
P4: The set of natural things that has always existed is empty.
C2: Every natural thing that exists now began to exist at some point in time.

I accept this as a valid re-wording of my second argument. As you've written it, it states what I was TRYING to say from the beginning. Your conclusion equals mine: That either there is some natural thing that has always existed or there is no natural thing that has always existed.

Moving on:
Argument.

The second and fourth premise are the antithesis of each other; it takes the form of ‘A’ or ‘Not A’ (A ∨ ¬A). There is no false dichotomy here; either there has always been at least one natural thing x, or there has not. These premises stand on their own, and cannot be reduced ad absurdum.

Both P1…C1 and P3…C2 are logically valid arguments in the way in which they are constructed. The problem with Premise 1 is that we have neither empirical evidence nor repeatable tests for any natural thing ‘x’ which has always existed.

If a person’s position is that, “I don’t have enough information to decide whether it’s C1 or C2; therefore I am skeptical of both,� under the circumstances presented here, this is a form of dishonest (or unreasonable) skepticism; there will never be more information concerning C1.

If a person’s position is that, “I’m skeptical of C2 because there might be some natural thing out there which has always existed (i.e., some infinite thing),� then their position is an argument ad ignorantum. Certainly such a thing might exist; but in the same vein, pink unicorns or leprechauns might exist. Just because it is possible for something to exist is not reason enough to be skeptical of a statement denying such.

Since the first conclusion cannot be accepted under the principles established here – that for a thing to be known and/or accepted, there must be empirical evidence of it and/or repeatable tests of it – that leaves the second conclusion. The subject at hand, the answer is either C1 or C2.

Since C1 has been eliminated, by virtue of the process of elimination and logic, the answer is therefore C2, that some natural thing ‘x’ {quarks, energy, particles, etc.} has not always existed (the set of natural things that has always existed is empty), i.e., that every thing 'x' which exists began to exist at some point in time. This concludes the first section of my argument.

[McCulloch]

At the very least, you know quite a bit more about mathematics, set theory, and so on, stuff I'm hazy on at best).

I did major in Mathematics in university.

Your conclusion equals mine: That either there is some natural thing that has always existed or there is no natural thing that has always existed.

Agreed.

There is no false dichotomy here; either there has always been at least one natural thing x, or there has not. These premises stand on their own, and cannot be reduced ad absurdum.

Agreed.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can change form. Under general relativity, matter and energy are equivalent, so matter can be changed into energy and energy into matter. The first law of thermodynamics has been supported by repeatable tests and empirical evidence. Thus, until there is evidence of a reasonable refutation of the first law, a reasonable person would believe that it holds true. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the total energy in the universe has existed for all time.

[ToKnowHim]

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can change form. Under general relativity, matter and energy are equivalent, so matter can be changed into energy and energy into matter. The first law of thermodynamics has been supported by repeatable tests and empirical evidence. Thus, until there is evidence of a reasonable refutation of the first law, a reasonable person would believe that it holds true. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the total energy in the universe has existed for all time.

I haven't yet been able to find anything on the web regarding repeatable experiments for the 1st law.

However, just because something is a certain way NOW does not mean it has ALWAYS been that way. I know that science relies upon, at least to a degree, the idea that what is today was also yesterday and will be again tomorrow. If the rate that nuclear reactions happened changed on a random, unpredictable basis, we could hardly use it as an energy source!

But I'm aware that we have at least some evidence that gravitational forces have been different at different points in history. I seem to recall reading something about the speed of light not being constant, either; that there are times when it goes more slowly or more quickly.

I know for certain that the moon is moving away from the earth at a constant, measurable speed; assuming that it has ALWAYS been moving at that speed would be a mistake (an argument ad ignorantum). We can extrapolate from the data we have to determine that it has been moving at different rates at different times in history.

If we have CURRENT repeatable tests which demonstrate that energy isn't created or destroyed, but only changes forms, do we ALSO have repeatable tests showing that this was the case 5 million, 10 million, or 14.5 million years ago?

The problem is this: With the application of logic, terms like 'always' and 'never' become problematic. When an arguer uses such a term, it is incumbent upon THEM to provide the proof of that statement.

Without direct, incontrovertible empirical evidence or repeatable tests that energy has ALWAYS existed, I must be skeptical of that statement. Energy exists NOW; our data shows that energy cannot be destroyed or created... NOW. That does not equate to the notion that it has ALWAYS been the case...

What do you think?

[McCulloch]

However, just because something is a certain way NOW does not mean it has ALWAYS been that way. I know that science relies upon, at least to a degree, the idea that what is today was also yesterday and will be again tomorrow. If the rate that nuclear reactions happened changed on a random, unpredictable basis, we could hardly use it as an energy source!

And unless there is a valid reason to believe otherwise, we work under the assumption that things have not changed. Yes, sometimes things do change. But it is absurd to presume that the first law of thermodynamics must have changed because, uh, well because, sometimes other things change.

But I'm aware that we have at least some evidence that gravitational forces have been different at different points in history.

Yes, please present the evidence that at some time in the past, the gravitational constant was different than it is now.

I seem to recall reading something about the speed of light not being constant, either; that there are times when it goes more slowly or more quickly.

Please present the evidence that at some point in the past, that the speed of light in a vacuum was not the same as it is now.

I know for certain that the moon is moving away from the earth at a constant, measurable speed; assuming that it has ALWAYS been moving at that speed would be a mistake (an argument ad ignorantum). We can extrapolate from the data we have to determine that it has been moving at different rates at different times in history.

Of course it has. But the extrapolation is based on the laws of physics, particularly the force of gravity, being constant.

If we have CURRENT repeatable tests which demonstrate that energy isn't created or destroyed, but only changes forms, do we ALSO have repeatable tests showing that this was the case 5 million, 10 million, or 14.5 million years ago?

Is there any reason to believe that the first law of thermodynamics is a recent phenomenon? Without a valid reason to believe that such a fundamental principle of the universe has changed, we must operate under the assumption that it has remained constant. To do otherwise leads to the kind of reasoning found in the Omphalos hypothesis. Maybe the universe was created last Thursday, you and I created with all of our memories as if we had lived all of our lives. The speed of light might be a constant now, the first and second laws of thermodynamics might hold now, the force of gravity may be a constant now, but who knows? Maybe 2 billion years ago, 2 million years ago, 2 thousand years ago, 2 hundred years ago or twenty days ago, these constants were different and the universe behaved in a way that would seem to us to be bizarre.

The problem is this: With the application of logic, terms like 'always' and 'never' become problematic. When an arguer uses such a term, it is incumbent upon THEM to provide the proof of that statement.

The argument being made by one of the debaters in this discussion is dependent on the unproven assertion that there is no natural thing that has existed for all time. Until it can be proven that this is the case, we can remain skeptical of that claim. In fact, the available evidence supports, but does not absolutely prove, that some natural things have existed for all time. In spite of your efforts to shift the burden of proof, it remains for you to disprove the first law of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can change form. Under general relativity, matter and energy are equivalent, so matter can be changed into energy and energy into matter. The first law of thermodynamics has been supported by repeatable tests and empirical evidence. Thus, until there is evidence of a reasonable refutation of the first law, a reasonable person would believe that it holds true. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the total energy in the universe has existed for all time.

I haven't yet been able to find anything on the web regarding repeatable experiments for the 1st law.

Now, if you really want to, we can travel down this rabbit hole. You can find a brief summary of the evidence on Wikipedia.

Overview of the weight of evidence for the law

The first law of thermodynamics is very general and makes so many predictions that they can hardly all be directly tested by experiment. Nevertheless, very very many of its predictions have been found empirically accurate. And very importantly, no accurately and properly conducted experiment has ever detected a violation of the law. Consequently, within its scope of applicability, the law is so reliably established, that, nowadays, rather than experiment being considered as testing the accuracy of the law, it is far more practical and realistic to think of the law as testing the accuracy of experiment. An experimental result that seems to violate the law may be assumed to be inaccurate or wrongly conceived, for example due to failure to consider an important physical factor.

[ToKnowHim]

Well, I'm certainly out of my element -- and quite possibly, out of my league. I looked up the Wikipedia page you posted, and I can see that there are words there, but I can't make heads or tails of them. The math is certainly beyond me.

I nearly failed algebra in High School until I realized that computer programming (which I was getting into rather heavily at the time) relied upon algebra for its inner workings. Later, when I got my Associate's Degree in Electronics, they taught us a little trigonometry to calculate sine waves and so on. However, math remains a very weak part of my knowledge.

Ok, here's what I'm doing. I have to accept science. If science says that energy has always existed, then I accept that. It is at least one counter-example to the second premise I posted.

I could possibly re-write the two sets of propositions to be 'some thing 'x' (other than energy)...

However, I'm not certain it's necessary to my ultimate argument. For that, I'll let you be the final arbiter. I'm not giving up! After all, my goal here is to learn. If you don't have any objections, I'll simply continue with the argument with the following proviso: I will reserve the right to re-introduce the above two ideas, as specified, for your evaluation.