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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

I really don't know what you are talking about...and once again, I find myself having to go back in time (to earlier pages) to figure out how we even got to this point in the conversation.

You are the ONLY person I seem to have this problem with *scratches head*. However, since you just stated that we don't agree on premise 1, I will simply give you the same scenario I gave others..

Ok, so how about this...if you just bought a brand new car (your favorite car)...and after you bought it, you are at home, chillin on the couch, watching tv..and your car is parked in front of your house.

As you are laid back, chillin...suddenly, you hear a loud shattering of glass outside..and you run outside to see what happened.

And once you get outside, you see your windshield completely shattered (no windowshield)..and you see a huge brick on the dashboard.

You ask me, "Bro, did you see who threw that brick through the windshield of my car".

And I say, "Bro, the crazy thing about it is; no one threw the brick..I was walking down the street, and as I walked past your car, a huge brick literally came out of NOWHERE, and dropped directly on your windshield. I seen it with my own eyes".

Will you accept my explanation? Yes or no?

If you accept my explanation as to what happened, then please leave me to my supernatural fantasies, as I will leave you to your natural fantasies (even though it wouldn't be "natural", but you catch my drift), and we can keep it moving.

If you won't accept my explanation as to what happened, then why would you sit there and object to P1, which states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, implying that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

So, have at it.

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.

Ok, so are you saying that he doesn't mean "nothingness" in the traditional sense of "complete emptiness; lacking anything" in the traditional, literal sense of the word?

Yes or no?

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.

Please explain what you are talking about, sir. Yup, Bust Nak is at it again. SMH.

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.

Does the energy within the vacuum cause the particles to appear, sir?

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?

The only condition is that nothing actually means "nothing" (no thing). Outside of that, there are no preconditions that will allow particles to come into being and not chairs, or any other arbitrary "thing".

[Bust Nak]

I really don't know what you are talking about...and once again, I find myself having to go back in time (to earlier pages) to figure out how we even got to this point in the conversation.

You are the ONLY person I seem to have this problem with *scratches head*.

I'll take that as a compliment.

"Bro, the crazy thing about it is; no one threw the brick..I was walking down the street, and as I walked past your car, a huge brick literally came out of NOWHERE, and dropped directly on your windshield. I seen it with my own eyes".

Will you accept my explanation? Yes or no?

No.

If you won't accept my explanation as to what happened, then why would you sit there and object to P1, which states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, implying that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

Because we have scientific evidence that some things (but not bricks) do indeed pop into being, uncaused out of a vacuum (but not out of nothing.)

Ok, so are you saying that he doesn't mean "nothingness" in the traditional sense of "complete emptiness; lacking anything" in the traditional, literal sense of the word?

He doesn't mean that, he meant a quantum vacuum.

Please explain what you are talking about, sir.

I am talking about virtual particles, obviously. I said that in my first post.

Does the energy within the vacuum cause the particles to appear, sir?

No.

The only condition is that nothing actually means "nothing" (no thing). Outside of that, there are no preconditions that will allow particles to come into being and not chairs, or any other arbitrary "thing".

So why don't we see chairs and other arbitrary thing like bricks pop into being?

[Clownboat]

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".

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

You need to realize that the attachment to the gods is yours.
This "anything but the 'G' word" stems from your attachment to god concepts.

I don't see any reason as to why an atheist would not be open to a god if one could be shown to be at least likely or needed.

God concepts not being necessary is not the same thing as I will not accept a god concept as an explanation. You would do well to acknowledge this, however, I understand that having a pretend enemy of your god does help to unite the religious.

Unfortunately, this Us vs Them mentality is very effective at creating and sustaining the unity of a group, but it ignores the fact that most atheist would accept a god if one could be shown to be needed. This refutes your "anything but the 'G' word".

[wiploc]

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.

You claim to know how the universe began, and you insist that we agree with you, and you insult us for not agreeing with you, but you won't tell us why we should agree with you. I disagree with all of that stuff, and I don't see any way that you could be confused about that.

SMH.

Which means what?

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.

You never said not liking X is your reason, but you won't give a better one despite repeated coaxing. It's as if you don't really have a reason. It's as if you just like Y.

If you do have a reason, pray tell.

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

Non sequitur.

It's not a sequitur, it's a definition. If you want to use "universe" to mean something else, you can say so, but that won't make my usage wrong.

If you want to talk about just part of existence (everything but gods) then you might clarify by using a term like partaverse (less than everything) and allaverse (everything). That way you won't confuse people when you claim that your gods created just some things but not everything.

My mom and sister in law told me that god created himself. If that's your position, you can say so. In that case, you can claim that the universe (allaverse) had a cause but the cause was itself. Is that your position?

If not, then your claim is that your god created everything except itself? Do I have that right?

Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to misrepresent you.

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.

If N is everything, how can M be something else, something not included in N? That doesn't make sense. It's nonsense. So my assertion is not unsupported, it is supported by logic, by common sense.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I really don't know what you are talking about...and once again, I find myself having to go back in time (to earlier pages) to figure out how we even got to this point in the conversation.

You are the ONLY person I seem to have this problem with *scratches head*.

I'll take that as a compliment.

You go right ahead..

Because we have scientific evidence that some things (but not bricks) do indeed pop into being, uncaused out of a vacuum (but not out of nothing.)

He doesn't mean that, he meant a quantum vacuum.

Does the energy within the vacuum cause the particles to appear, sir?
No.

So, you are saying that the energy within the vacuum does not allow the particles to appear..and there is something special about this quantum vacuum, which makes it so exclusive that it allows particles to pop in to being (from nothing)..while completely excluding all other things.

You got problems, my man, as your position is logically absurd. Otherwise, please explain the exclusiveness (which you already stated that you don't know).

There can be no answer to this, which even defies naturalism...but lets get to the problems..

1. Exclusiveness: the state of "nothingness" can't be exclusive to only particles..if you think otherwise, then you are placing preconditions on "nothingness", which is, of course, logically absurd

2. More Exclusiveness: how many particles get to pop out of nothing from this vacuum? A lot, a little? No matter what answer you give, it is still exclusive. How fast are the popping out? Any duration you give is still exclusive. How does the state of nothingness come with specified values?

3. Even more logical problems: Which will be addressed in the next thread

4. Even more scientific problems: Which will also be addressed in the next thread

Absurdities + absurdities = more absurdities.

Please explain what you are talking about, sir.

I am talking about virtual particles, obviously. I said that in my first post.

Thats all fine and dandy..the problem is; I wasn't asking specifically about virtual particles, which is ironic as to why you would think I was..considering we are already in the process of talking about it.

The only condition is that nothing actually means "nothing" (no thing). Outside of that, there are no preconditions that will allow particles to come into being and not chairs, or any other arbitrary "thing".

So why don't we see chairs and other arbitrary thing like bricks pop into being?

You tell me, I am not the one making "nothingness" exclusive.

[Bust Nak]

So, you are saying that the energy within the vacuum does not allow the particles to appear..and there is something special about this quantum vacuum, which makes it so exclusive that it allows particles to pop in to being (from nothing)..while completely excluding all other things.

No. I am saying that the "energy" (technically it's not energy but lets not get bogged down) within the vacuum does allow the particles to appear..and there is something special about this quantum vacuum, which makes it so exclusive that it allows particles to pop in to being (not from nothing but from the vacuum)..while completely excluding all other things.

Otherwise, please explain the exclusiveness (which you already stated that you don't know).

Why would you ask me to explain it if you know that I don't know?

1. Exclusiveness: the state of "nothingness"...

What's this about state of nothingness? I keep telling you it's a vacuum, exactly because I don't want to get into debating what nothingness means.

More Exclusiveness: how many particles get to pop out of nothing from this vacuum?

What's this about popping "out of nothing from this vacuum?" It's EITHER popping out of nothing OR it's popping out of the vacuum because a vacuum is a thing. If it's popping out of a thing then it's not popping out of nothing. So why ask me about "nothing?"

A lot, a little?

Out of a vacuum? A lot.

How fast are the popping out?

Out of a vacuum? Very fast.

How does the state of nothingness come with specified values?

You tell me. I said nothing about a state of nothingness.

Thats all fine and dandy..the problem is; I wasn't asking specifically about virtual particles...

Ask better questions, if you wasn't asking specifically about virtual particles.

which is ironic as to why you would think I was..considering we are already in the process of talking about it.

You say that yet the record will show that often you loss track of the conversation.

You tell me, I am not the one making "nothingness" exclusive.

Why ask me? When I am not the one making "nothingness" exclusive.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You claim to know how the universe began

Simply not true. No where in any part of P1 is there a mention of the universe, period...much less how it began.

, and you insist that we agree with you

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

Sure, I insisted that rational human beings come together and agree to all three of those points above. My expectations were obviously too high.

And by the way, I ask that you respond to my two scenarios in post #57. I could have missed it, and if I did, I apologize..but at least from what I gather, it seems like you are conveniently responding to everything BUT those two scenarios.

It is important that you respond, because it helps drive home the point of how ridiculous the whole "popping into being out of nothing" thing is.

, and you insult us for not agreeing with you, but you won't tell us why we should agree with you.

Have you read my posts on this thread? I've explained to multiple folks why you should agree with me..now, if my answers aren't good enough, then I can't help you.

I already know the game.

I disagree with all of that stuff, and I don't see any way that you could be confused about that.

And I don't know why you think I am confused about anything that you said.

You never said not liking X is your reason, but you won't give a better one despite repeated coaxing. It's as if you don't really have a reason. It's as if you just like Y.

That is ironic, coming from a person who doesn't believe in God. It is almost as if you just like naturalism.

See what I did there?

It's not a sequitur, it's a definition. If you want to use "universe" to mean something else, you can say so, but that won't make my usage wrong.

And here I was, trying to keep the "universe" talk out of the equation..for now.

If you want to talk about just part of existence (everything but gods) then you might clarify by using a term like partaverse (less than everything) and allaverse (everything). That way you won't confuse people when you claim that your gods created just some things but not everything.

My mom and sister in law told me that god created himself. If that's your position, you can say so. In that case, you can claim that the universe (allaverse) had a cause but the cause was itself. Is that your position?

If not, then your claim is that your god created everything except itself? Do I have that right?

Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to misrepresent you.

All I want to talk about is whether it is rational/irrational to believe that things can pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing.

If N is everything, how can M be something else, something not included in N? That doesn't make sense. It's nonsense. So my assertion is not unsupported, it is supported by logic, by common sense.

Who has argued that N is everything? See what I mean?

[William]

[Replying to post 107 by For_The_Kingdom]

All I want to talk about is whether it is rational/irrational to believe that things can pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that it is irrational to believe that things can pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing.

What now?

Are you going to argue that it is therefore rational to believe that things can pop in to being, caused, out of nothing?

[Willum]

1. Everything that/which begins to exist has a cause

Hydrogen, 75% of the universe, is uncaused.

2. The universe began to exist

So, no. The universe did not begin to exist, any more than ice begins to exist because it used to be liquid.

[wiploc]

You claim to know how the universe began

Simply not true. No where in any part of P1 is there a mention of the universe, period...much less how it began.

So you're going to be just stunned, right, when we get to P2 and it turns out the universe began?

And by the way, I ask that you respond to my two scenarios in post #57. I could have missed it, and if I did, I apologize..but at least from what I gather, it seems like you are conveniently responding to everything BUT those two scenarios.

Your car alarm goes off. You run out in the yard and find your windshield smashed. A guy with a brick says, "It wasn't me. This god just popped into existence and smashed your windshield and then disappeared."

I'll accept that the brick popped into existence when you accept that the god did.

It is important that you respond, because it helps drive home the point of how ridiculous the whole "popping into being out of nothing" thing is.

I hope I have conveyed how well I agree that your hypothetical situation was ridiculous.

Have you read my posts on this thread? I've explained to multiple folks why you should agree with me..now, if my answers aren't good enough, then I can't help you.

Well, then, I'd better absent myself from this thread before I start insulting you back.

And I don't know why you think I am confused about anything that you said.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, pretending I didn't think they were deliberate misrepresentations.

Yes, it's definitely time for me to leave.