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)

[kayky]

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

[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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Let' just cut this off right here, as most'll have an inkling of the notion. This argument avoids asking the question of whether the universe may have always existed in a prior "pre-expansion" form. Thus, it's right up there with the best of Looney Tunes (of which I have the most complete collection I'm aware of, to include the racially insensitive ones, and we're sorry 'bout that - and of which I have engaged in the most complete and thorough analysis of any human I'm aware of) on the scale of how goofy can something be. That for sure doesn't mean goofy is a bad thing, but there it is.

On this basis I conclude the argument only "works" because it fails to include at least one of the available possible conditions.

[ThatGirlAgain]

From the OP:

Let' just cut this off right here, as most'll have an inkling of the notion. This argument avoids asking the question of whether the universe may have always existed in a prior "pre-expansion" form. Thus, it's right up there with the best of Looney Tunes (of which I have the most complete collection I'm aware of, to include the racially insensitive ones, and we're sorry 'bout that - and of which I have engaged in the most complete and thorough analysis of any human I'm aware of) on the scale of how goofy can something be. That for sure doesn't mean goofy is a bad thing, but there it is.

On this basis I conclude the argument only "works" because it fails to include at least one of the available possible conditions.

Regardless of what is postulated to exist ‘before’, can it explain its own specificity? If it is some particular thing and not some other particular something, an explanation is needed of why other possibilities are excluded. Infinite regress does not help here because it is only a chain of more specifics without explanation.


Aside: Do you have Bugs Bunny in “Destroy That Scrap Pile�? It was one of my Grandad’s favorites from his youth. Never saw it myself. It is apparently one of the insensitive ones.

[kayky]

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.

Okay. I reread the OP, and you did allow for nonphysicality. Try not to go all postal on me.

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?

Saying that God is "unnecessary" does not prove the nonexistence of God, as I'm sure you are well aware.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 5:

Regardless of what is postulated to exist ‘before’, can it explain its own specificity? If it is some particular thing and not some other particular something, an explanation is needed of why other possibilities are excluded. Infinite regress does not help here because it is only a chain of more specifics without explanation.

I gotta leave all that high order thinking to y'all fat-brains, but I do stand by my statement.

Aside: Do you have Bugs Bunny in “Destroy That Scrap Pile�? It was one of my Grandad’s favorites from his youth. Never saw it myself. It is apparently one of the insensitive ones.

"Scrap Happy Daffy", from '43. Found on The "Looney Tunes Golden Collection", Volume 5, Disk 4, Track 7... (a colorized version exists, but it ain't the 'riginal so to heck with it )

Presented as a piece of history, warts and all...
[youtube][/youtube]

[ThatGirlAgain]

Joey

So it was Daffy and not Bugs. Probably my misunderstanding.

I will check it out at home.

[Ionian_Tradition]

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)

I believe the apologist might be inclined to respond by calling attention to the potentially unsettling implications of an eternally existing universe, namely the problem of entropy and infinite regress, as a means of arguing that the universe must have had a beginning.

Entropy implies the universe must become increasingly disordered over time. If the universe is infinitely old, our presently ordered universe should not exist because there would have been an infinite amount of time for the universe to become disordered prior to the present moment.

A universe existing eternally in time implies and infinite number of moments which would necessarily precede the present, which would have prevented the present moment from ever arriving in the first place....Provided we grant an "A-theory" of time of course.

[McCulloch]

I believe the apologist might be inclined to respond by calling attention to the potentially unsettling implications of an eternally existing universe, namely the problem of entropy and infinite regress, as a means of arguing that the universe must have had a beginning.

Entropy implies the universe must become increasingly disordered over time. If the universe is infinitely old, our presently ordered universe should not exist because there would have been an infinite amount of time for the universe to become disordered prior to the present moment.

A universe existing eternally in time implies and infinite number of moments which would necessarily precede the present, which would have prevented the present moment from ever arriving in the first place....Provided we grant an "A-theory" of time of course.

It all depends on how you define eternal. To me eternal means having existed for all time. The universe is eternal. Time however is finite. So an eternally existing universe does not mean a universe that has existed for an infinite length of time. But, what existed before time, you might ask. That is a meaningless question, just as what is colder than absolute zero, what is shorter than a Planck length, what is slower than stopped ...