Kalam cosmological argument analysis

[Waiting4evidence]

This is Kalam's cosmological argument, as presented in its modern form by William Lane Craig:

1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) The universe has a cause
4) The cause of the universe is God

I have a very simple question:

Is it POSSIBLE or is it IMPOSSIBLE for any imaginable or unimaginable, conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entity of any kind to exist without having begun to exist?

This is a true dichotomy. Let's plug both options into the original syllogism.

If it's IMPOSSIBLE for any entity to exist without having begun to exist (if, in other words, everything which exists must of necessity have begun to exist), then the entity which caused the universe to begin existing, must have begun existing also, because it's IMPOSSIBLE for any entity to exist without having begun to exist.

If the entity that caused the universe to exist, also began to exist, then - as per premise 1 - the entity that caused the universe to begin existing, WAS CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE.

What caused God to begin existing?


On the other hand...

If it is POSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist (like for example an eternal God), then the fact that something exists doesn't of necessity mean that it must have begun to exist. Thus, the fact that the universe exists doesn't of necessity mean that the universe began to exist. Thus premise 2 is not necessarily true. We have NOT observed the universe to begin existing, we do NOT understand the singularity, and are unable to probe further in the past than the few seconds AFTER the Big Bang. Thus the notion that the universe began to exist is SPECULATIVE, not FACTUAL.

Therefore, if it's possible for something to exist without having began to exist, and it is therefore possible for the universe to exist without having begun to exist, and if only that which began to exist must of necessity have been caused by something, then the universe was not necessarily caused.



My entire argument in short form:
Is it possible for an entity to exist without having begun to exist?
If it is not possible, then the entity that caused the universe must have begun to exist, and thus must have been caused.
If it is possible, then premise 2 is not necessarily true, and thus conclusion 3 is not true.

Thoughts?

(Please, no arguments based on special pleading)

[Goat]

I think your first mistake is assuming God is an "entity," implying physicality.

BZZZZZZZ. WRONG.

I do NOT imply physicality by using the word "entity".

I write: " any imaginable or unimaginable, conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entity of any kind"

I am NOT implying physicality.

To say that "conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entities" is implying that entities are all physical, is like saying that "red apples, yellow apples, green apples" implies that all apples are red.

I assume you retract that portion of your comment, and agree to read my posts more carefully in the future.

It is difficult for the human mind to conceive of anything without beginnings or endings because of our experience of time and space. If the existance of a spiritual realm is possible, the concepts of time and space could be meaningless within it.

Ok, cool. So you are saying that it IS possible for some kind of spiritual/transcendental/abstract entity to exist without having begun to exist, because the concept of time and space - on which the idea of "beginning" is predicated - can be meaningless in some situations such as the spiritual realm.

You know where else the concept of space and time are meaningless? In a singularity. You know what the big bang is? A singularity.

You yourself said that in a context where space and time are meaningless, then things can be without beginnings or endings.

There is no regular space and time in a singularity such as the Big Bang, thus the Big bang has no space and time, thus no beginning, thus no cause. Therefore God doesn't necessarily exist.

Right?

The biggest thing about this entire line of reasoning.. you have untestable, unprovable vague assumptions coming to an untestable and unprovable conclusion.

In other words, totally worthless.

[Goat]

I think your first mistake is assuming God is an "entity," implying physicality.

BZZZZZZZ. WRONG.

I do NOT imply physicality by using the word "entity".

I write: " any imaginable or unimaginable, conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entity of any kind"

I am NOT implying physicality.

To say that "conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entities" is implying that entities are all physical, is like saying that "red apples, yellow apples, green apples" implies that all apples are red.

I assume you retract that portion of your comment, and agree to read my posts more carefully in the future.

It is difficult for the human mind to conceive of anything without beginnings or endings because of our experience of time and space. If the existance of a spiritual realm is possible, the concepts of time and space could be meaningless within it.

Ok, cool. So you are saying that it IS possible for some kind of spiritual/transcendental/abstract entity to exist without having begun to exist, because the concept of time and space - on which the idea of "beginning" is predicated - can be meaningless in some situations such as the spiritual realm.

You know where else the concept of space and time are meaningless? In a singularity. You know what the big bang is? A singularity.

You yourself said that in a context where space and time are meaningless, then things can be without beginnings or endings.

There is no regular space and time in a singularity such as the Big Bang, thus the Big bang has no space and time, thus no beginning, thus no cause. Therefore God doesn't necessarily exist.

Right?

The biggest thing about this entire line of reasoning.. you have untestable, unprovable vague assumptions coming to an untestable and unprovable conclusion.

Then you have a leap of logic that is unjustified.

FOr example, the term 'begin to exist' is vague. Do you mean 'formed from something else', 'from nothing'

.

Can you

[Waiting4evidence]

I think your first mistake is assuming God is an "entity," implying physicality.

BZZZZZZZ. WRONG.

I do NOT imply physicality by using the word "entity".

I write: " any imaginable or unimaginable, conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entity of any kind"

I am NOT implying physicality.

To say that "conceptual, physical, abstract or transcendental entities" is implying that entities are all physical, is like saying that "red apples, yellow apples, green apples" implies that all apples are red.

I assume you retract that portion of your comment, and agree to read my posts more carefully in the future.

It is difficult for the human mind to conceive of anything without beginnings or endings because of our experience of time and space. If the existance of a spiritual realm is possible, the concepts of time and space could be meaningless within it.

Ok, cool. So you are saying that it IS possible for some kind of spiritual/transcendental/abstract entity to exist without having begun to exist, because the concept of time and space - on which the idea of "beginning" is predicated - can be meaningless in some situations such as the spiritual realm.

You know where else the concept of space and time are meaningless? In a singularity. You know what the big bang is? A singularity.

You yourself said that in a context where space and time are meaningless, then things can be without beginnings or endings.

There is no regular space and time in a singularity such as the Big Bang, thus the Big bang has no space and time, thus no beginning, thus no cause. Therefore God doesn't necessarily exist.

Right?

The biggest thing about this entire line of reasoning.. you have untestable, unprovable vague assumptions coming to an untestable and unprovable conclusion.

Then you have a leap of logic that is unjustified.

FOr example, the term 'begin to exist' is vague. Do you mean 'formed from something else', 'from nothing'

.

Can you

Agreed, the entire endeavor, as instituted by Aquinas and perpetrated by clowns like Kalam and William Lane Craig, is just glorified mental masturbation to justify belief in fairy tales.

[otseng]

Agreed, the entire endeavor, as instituted by Aquinas and perpetrated by clowns like Kalam and William Lane Craig, is just glorified mental masturbation to justify belief in fairy tales.

Moderator Final Warning

This post is considered to be uncivil and inflammatory. Please exercise more discretion in future posts in describing others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[AquinasD]

If it is POSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist, then premise 2 of Kalam's argument is not necessarily true, but rather, just a speculative assertion.

I don't see why this is the case at all. That something might exist without being caused does not imply that just anything can exist without being caused. You seem to be implying that the universe is some individual substance, and not just a collection of things.

[Waiting4evidence]

If it is POSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist, then premise 2 of Kalam's argument is not necessarily true, but rather, just a speculative assertion.

I don't see why this is the case at all. That something might exist without being caused does not imply that just anything can exist without being caused. You seem to be implying that the universe is some individual substance, and not just a collection of things.

That something can exist without having begun to exist implies that something can exist without having begun to exit. Period.

If, therefore, it's possible for something to exist without having begun to exist, it's possible, in principle, that the universe exists without having begun to exist.

I'm not saying that because it's possible for something to exist without having begun to exist, therefore the universe definitely exists without having begun to exist.

If it's possible for something to exist without having begun to exist, then it's possible that the universe didn't begin to exist.

If it's impossible to win the lottery, then it would be impossible that I am holding in my hand the winning ticket.

But if it's possible to win the lottery, then it's possible that I am holding in my hand the winning ticket. It doesn't guarantee it, but it makes it possible.

If a logical argument were based on the premise that I am not holding the winning ticket, then the logical argument would be flawed, because the possibility that I am holding the winning ticket is clearly non-zero.

Is this argument correct or flawed?

1) Nobody who buys a lottery ticket ever wins
2) W4E bought a lottery ticket
3) Therefore W4E is not going to win

Why is it flawed? Because it's POSSIBLE to win the lottery.


Is this argument correct or flawed?
1) Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) The universe has a cause

Why is this flawed? Because it's POSSIBLE to exist without having begun to exist.

If on the other hand it's IMPOSSIBLE for something to exist without having begun to exist, then whatever caused the universe to begin existing in turn exists, and therefore in turn began to exist, and therefore in turn was caused by something. Therefore God was caused by something. Therefore God does not exist.

[Bust Nak]

Then you face the problem of an infinite number of oscillation events which would precede the universe we inhabit today, thus preventing our present universe from ever forming.

Can you explain why exactly would an infinite amount preceding events would prevent our present universe from ever forming? A lot of people make this claim but on further exmination the reasoning seems to always be of the form of "well you can't finishing count to infinity/from minus infinity."