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]

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)...

I don't think that will work. You see, according to General Relativity, energy is matter. You know, E = mc²; Energy = mass × the speed of light squared. So, unless you wish to prove Einstein wrong, you would have to re-write as :
some thing 'x' (other than matter or energy).

I really don't think that you can pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one. Your argument, in my opinion, has failed. However, feel free to try to resurrect it.

[ToKnowHim]

Hmm. Well, I certainly can't argue with Einstein. That's just not doable. If I understand:

p1. Energy is never destroyed, it only changes forms.
p2. Energy = matter;
c1. Therefore, matter is never destroyed, it only changes forms.

Ergo, if energy has ALWAYS existed, then matter (by definition) has ALWAYS existed.

I'm not certain if this harms the argument or not. The first premise of the KCA is that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause;' If this premise is remotely true, can we say that there are things which have begun to exist?

Certainly. Matter is just matter. Energy is just energy. Matter ≠ the observable universe; energy ≠ the observable universe. Even though the observable universe is made of matter and energy, I think a case could be made that the energy/matter had to 'coalesce,' as it were, into the singularity which eventually expanded (big bang/big expansion) to become the observable universe as we currently know it.

Perhaps other things 'x' which also now exist (and are neither 'energy,' per se, nor 'matter,' per se, but some amalgation or derivative thereof) also 'began' at some point in time; under this thesis, I believe I can continue.

Or... is my thinking STILL off?

[McCulloch]

Hmm. Well, I certainly can't argue with Einstein. That's just not doable.

Good choice.

If I understand:

p1. Energy is never destroyed, it only changes forms.
p2. Energy = matter;
c1. Therefore, matter is never destroyed, it only changes forms.

Ergo, if energy has ALWAYS existed, then matter (by definition) has ALWAYS existed.

No, it seems more sensible to view matter as a special configuration of energy. It seems that matter has not always existed. When the universe was in a very high energy state, matter would not have been possible.

I'm not certain if this harms the argument or not. The first premise of the KCA is that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause;' If this premise is remotely true, can we say that there are things which have begun to exist?

Without agreeing that the first premise of the KCA is true, I can agree that there are things which have begun to exist. They would be composite things, that is things that are made up of other things. A water molecule begins to exist when two hydrogen atoms fuse with one oxygen atom Hâ‚‚O.

Certainly. Matter is just matter. Energy is just energy. Matter ≠ the observable universe; energy ≠ the observable universe. Even though the observable universe is made of matter and energy, I think a case could be made that the energy/matter had to 'coalesce,' as it were, into the singularity which eventually expanded (big bang/big expansion) to become the observable universe as we currently know it.

No, I would not agree with this view, neither would many cosmologists. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you see time as infinite. I agree with many philosophers that there cannot be an actual infinity. Even time is finite. There was no time before the big bang. Nothing happened. There was no coalescence.

Perhaps other things 'x' which also now exist (and are neither 'energy,' per se, nor 'matter,' per se, but some amalgation or derivative thereof) also 'began' at some point in time; under this thesis, I believe I can continue.

Or... is my thinking STILL off?

I believe that your thinking is off, but do proceed.

I think that we agree on two things:

1. There are some things which have begun.
2. Energy has existed for all time.

[ToKnowHim]

Actually, I do *NOT* see time as infinite, at least in terms of the natural, observable universe. It is my personal belief that time (as we know and understand it, at least) began either just before or at the same time as the singularity itself. Without a space to exist in and time to exist, the energy could not have been a singularity. I think.

Anyway, I've removed my {} extrapolation of things 'x' for the remaining arguments. Here's the next one:

Premise 5.
Natural things exist.

Premise 6.
Some natural thing ‘x’ exists with no cause.

Conclusion 3.
Every natural thing that exists now either was caused by some thing else, or had no cause.

[McCulloch]

Actually, I do *NOT* see time as infinite, at least in terms of the natural, observable universe. It is my personal belief that time (as we know and understand it, at least) began either just before or at the same time as the singularity itself. Without a space to exist in and time to exist, the energy could not have been a singularity. I think.

You are very close to assuming what is to be proven. Could it not be that the singularity existed from the very beginning of time?

Anyway, I've removed my {} extrapolation of things 'x' for the remaining arguments. Here's the next one:

Premise 5.
Natural things exist.

Premise 6.
Some natural thing ‘x’ exists with no cause.

Conclusion 3.
Every natural thing that exists now either was caused by some thing else, or had no cause.

While I actually agree with the conclusion, it does not logically follow from the premises given. I'll explain with an example.

Premise 44. Coconuts exist.
Premise 45. Some coconuts are wild.
Conclusion 15. Every coconut is either wild or cultivated (not wild).

It could be that there were no cultivated coconuts. There is nothing in your premises indicating that there are natural things that were caused.

[ToKnowHim]

Actually, this should be an either-or proposition as well; either a thing has a cause, or it has no cause (it simply exists).

The second premise of this set is the idea that there is at least one thing 'x' which simply exists, without a cause.

Here's the next set:
Premise 7.
Natural things exist.

Premise 8.
Every natural thing ‘x’ exists with a cause.

Conclusion 4.
Every natural thing that exists was caused by something else.

[McCulloch]

Actually, this should be an either-or proposition as well; either a thing has a cause, or it has no cause (it simply exists).

The second premise of this set is the idea that there is at least one thing 'x' which simply exists, without a cause.

Here's the next set:
Premise 7.
Natural things exist.

Premise 8.
Every natural thing ‘x’ exists with a cause.

Conclusion 4.
Every natural thing that exists was caused by something else.

If you are going to make any progress in learning to use logic, you absolutely must learn to be precise in your use of language. Logicians are like that. If you mean to say that there is at least one thing which exists, without a cause, then say just that. Not Every natural thing that exists now either was caused by some thing else, or had no cause.

You have repeated the premise in each of the four sets of arguments that Natural things exist. I cannot see what possible purpose or meaning that this statement makes to any of the arguments, but if you feel that it is absolutely necessary, it could be made as a premise once for all subsequent sets of arguments. But really, is the negation of this at all meaningful or valid. Can anyone say, within the definitions we have already agreed to, that No natural things exist?

So, here is the whole ball of wax so far (as I see it):
1. Natural things exist. That is to say, that in the set of natural things, there is at least one with a defined position in both space and time.
2. Every natural thing that exists now either began to exist at some point in time, or has always existed.
3. Either there is some natural thing that has always existed or there is no natural thing that has always existed.
4. Every natural thing that exists now either was caused by something else, or had no cause.

I cannot find any possible reason to disagree with any of these four points.

[ToKnowHim]

Thank you again for your clarity.

For the first set, the conclusion is then that there is at least one thing which exists, without a cause. The second set's conclusion is that there is NO thing which exists, without a cause. They are the natural antithesis of each other.

As far as my structure, as far as I'm aware, it is improper to have only a single premise followed by a conclusion. Therefore, I had to have two premises for each conclusion. I also didn't want to fall into the trap of stating my conclusion in the premise. That's why I've formatted things as I have.

1. Natural things exist. That is to say, that in the set of natural things, there is at least one with a defined position in both space and time.
2. Every natural thing that exists now either began to exist at some point in time, or has always existed.
3. Either there is some natural thing that has always existed or there is no natural thing that has always existed.
4. Every natural thing that exists now either was caused by something else, or had no cause.

Absolutely. I agree as well. However:

It is my ultimate position (hopefully I can get there by the end of this debate) that:
2. Every natural thing that exists now began to exist at some point in time.
3. There is no natural thing that has always existed.
4. Every natural thing that exists now was caused by something else.

That, after all, is the 'point' or purpose of the KCA.

The problem with C3 is that we have no empirical evidence or repeatable tests for any natural thing ‘x’ which exists with no cause. With no empirical evidence nor repeatable test nor logical argument to support C3 that some natural thing ‘x’ exists with no cause, we must be skeptical of it.

That leaves us with C4, that every natural thing ‘x’ exists with a cause. There is no false dichotomy here; either C3 is true or C4 is true. It cannot be a situation of both, nor can it be a situation of neither.

The nature of the premises and what we are discussing directly demonstrates that it is either C3 or C4. Since we have disregarded C3 as failing our basic test of science and logic, we must, by default, accept C4.

Well, where does that leave us? I'm eagerly awaiting your answer. I finally figured out Russell's Paradox; I'm still working to understand the First Law of Thermodynamics as well as the Second and Zeroth.

[McCulloch]

Thank you again for your clarity.

For the first set, the conclusion is then that there is at least one thing which exists, without a cause. The second set's conclusion is that there is NO thing which exists, without a cause. They are the natural antithesis of each other.

This is known in logical circles as the law of non-contradiction.

As far as my structure, as far as I'm aware, it is improper to have only a single premise followed by a conclusion. Therefore, I had to have two premises for each conclusion. I also didn't want to fall into the trap of stating my conclusion in the premise. That's why I've formatted things as I have.

I was wondering. However, the premises that you use must actually lead to the conclusion that follows. Logicians do not just throw in premises for form sake. Each premise must actually be meaningful and relevant to the conclusion. What you have done is not logically any different from stating your premises as conclusions.

1. Natural things exist. That is to say, that in the set of natural things, there is at least one with a defined position in both space and time.
2. Every natural thing that exists now either began to exist at some point in time, or has always existed.
3. Either there is some natural thing that has always existed or there is no natural thing that has always existed.
4. Every natural thing that exists now either was caused by something else, or had no cause.

Absolutely. I agree as well. However:

It is my ultimate position (hopefully I can get there by the end of this debate) that:
2. Every natural thing that exists now began to exist at some point in time.
3. There is no natural thing that has always existed.
4. Every natural thing that exists now was caused by something else.

OK, then. Rather than watch you struggle with using the unfamiliar (to you) language of logic, why don't you attempt to demonstrate any or all of the points 2, 3 or 4 above.

I will concede the debate if you can show that

• Every natural thing that exists now began to exist OR
• There is no natural thing that has always existed OR
• Every natural thing that exists now was caused by something else.

The problem with C3 is that we have no empirical evidence or repeatable tests for any natural thing ‘x’ which exists with no cause. With no empirical evidence nor repeatable test nor logical argument to support C3 that some natural thing ‘x’ exists with no cause, we must be skeptical of it.

In the phenomenon of quantum indeterminacy the subatomic level, the causal principle appears to break down. For example, virtual particles appear and disappear from observation, apparently at random.

[ToKnowHim]

I'm well aware of the experiments regarding quantum physics, where you have cause before effect, cause without effect and effect without cause -- or apparently so.

However, even Einstein admitted that he didn't understand quantum physics. It's hardly a 'settled' science (yet). Be that as it may, just because we may not KNOW how a particular particle 'popped into existence,' as it were, does not mean that it had no cause. To argue such is an argument ad ignorantum.

We can eliminate various known possible causes. But unless we've eliminated every single possible cause - even THEN we couldn't say that it had 'no cause.' We would simply say, 'no KNOWN cause.'

The argument is that there is no subset of things 'x' where 'x' has NO CAUSE; conversely, then, 'x' must have a cause, albeit an unknown cause.