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]

[Replying to post 30 by ToKnowHim]

You look at natural things in terms of cause and duration. And you make essentially the same argument for both attributes.

The argument can be simplified to this:

All natural things can be divided into those with X and those without X, where X is has a cause or has a beginning.
We have no empirical evidence or repeatable tests showing that there is any natural thing without X.
Therefore, we must be skeptical of it.

With the first law of thermodynamics, we have reason to believe that the fundamental units of existence have no beginning, they cannot be created nor destroyed. This law has empirical evidence and repeatable tests to support it.

With quantum physics, we have reason to believe that causation is not universal. There may be particles and events which happen arbitrarily and truly randomly. Admittedly, this is an area of physics where there is still much to be learned and any conclusions must be regarded as tentative. But, it would be premature, based on what we know now, to declare that there are no uncaused events or particles because we have not yet proven all of what is involved in quantum physics.

Besides, if there are things that have existed for all time, they cannot, by definition, have a cause. We agreed that the word cause means something that brings about an effect or a result. For something to have a cause, there must have been a time when that something did not exist. So, even given the tentative nature of quantum uncertainty, which you dismiss out of hand as being impossible because of its tentative nature, we still have the result that eternal things cannot have a cause. Any thing that has a cause has a beginning and any thing that has no beginning has no cause.

[ToKnowHim]

I'm not sure where we stand on this. However, let me posit something. Assuming, for argument's sake, that THIS universe - the observable universe that we now exist in - is the ONLY universe which has EVER existed, then it has 'been around,' as it were, for about 14 billion years. Before that, it did not exist.

Before it was a universe, it was a singularity. Before it was a singularity, it was simply unorganized energy.

But I'm assuming that there's a sort of 'space' for things to be in:

[font=Courier New]
----------
|.......... |
| energy |
|.......... |
----------
[/font]

But the 'space' where the energy is is itself a natural thing 'x'; under my argumentation, there must have been a time when that thing did not exist; in other words, there WAS no place for energy to be, because there was no place.

Then, at some point in time, this 'space' began to exist; everything else follows from that point forward.

Does this make any sense, or am I losing it entirely?

[McCulloch]

I'm not sure where we stand on this. However, let me posit something. Assuming, for argument's sake, that THIS universe - the observable universe that we now exist in - is the ONLY universe which has EVER existed, then it has 'been around,' as it were, for about 14 billion years. Before that, it did not exist.

Before it was a universe, it was a singularity. Before it was a singularity, it was simply unorganized energy.

No, that is not quite right. You see, we did agree that time is not infinite, remember. There may not have been a time before the universe. Time and space are themselves part of the universe, not something that the universe exists within.

But I'm assuming that there's a sort of 'space' for things to be in:

[row] [col] [row] [col color=#CCFFCC]energy[col][row]

But the 'space' where the energy is is itself a natural thing 'x'; under my argumentation, there must have been a time when that thing did not exist; in other words, there WAS no place for energy to be, because there was no place.

Then, at some point in time, this 'space' began to exist; everything else follows from that point forward.

Does this make any sense, or am I losing it entirely?

Have you got your brain seat-belts adjusted? According to general relativity space and time are not independent from each other. They can be combined into a single manifold called spacetime. Without space, there is no time. Without time there is no space. Spacetime is part of the universe and exists only as the universe itself exists. A singularity takes no space, it is infinitely dense. When the universe expands, it does not expand into the space that surrounds it, but space itself (finite because time is also finite) expands.

There was no time when there was no space. Even space itself did not begin, using the definition of begin that we agreed on.

The word ‘begin’/‘began’/‘beginning’ of a thing means that before its ‘beginning,’ it did not exist at all in any sense whatsoever.

The word before means a point in time earlier than the point being spoken of. If time is finite, then there is no time prior to time zero. If spacetime is a valid concept, then there was no space prior to time zero, but space has existed for all of time.

The Kal�m Cosmological Argument relies on infinite time. For the argument to work, there must be a time before the existence of anything else. But really, time in a void is meaningless. If there is no energy, no matter and even no space, how can there be time?

[ToKnowHim]

Unless I've horribly misunderstood you (good probability), you seem to have validated my argument for me.

You said:

Time and space are themselves part of the universe, not something that the universe exists within.

and...

It seems that matter has not always existed. When the universe was in a very high energy state, matter would not have been possible.

and...

You see, according to General Relativity, energy is matter. You know, E = mc2; Energy = mass × the speed of light squared.

This, to me, seems to say this:

That the 'space' in which the energy exists - which energy enabled the singularity to exist - has not existed forever. Matter itself has not existed forever. Energy = Matter. Therefore, energy has not existed forever.

Conclusion:
Space/time, energy, and matter all began to exist at some point in 'time'. Now, If there's a 'null state' of sorts where there is no energy, matter, or spacetime, then there can be no 'time' as we conventionally use the term.

But the terms 'before,' 'during,' and 'after' do not necessarily imply a timeline of actual 1.. 2.. 3.. type duration. The words can also be used in a metaphorical sense.

If I can proceed (I'm not too sure whether I still have any ground to stand on), I'll cover this idea a bit more.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 34 by ToKnowHim]

That the 'space' in which the energy exists - which energy enabled the singularity to exist - has not existed forever.

I believe that space has existed for all time. There has never been a time when there was no space. Time and space are interconnected in such a way as to make it impossible to conceive space without time. I have said absolutely nothing about how the singularity came to exist. Because it did not come to exist. There was no time before time. There would have been no energy before the beginning of time.

Matter itself has not existed forever. Energy = Matter. Therefore, energy has not existed forever.

Matter, sometimes in the form of energy, has always existed. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

Space/time, energy, and matter all began to exist at some point in 'time'. Now, If there's a 'null state' of sorts where there is no energy, matter, or spacetime, then there can be no 'time' as we conventionally use the term.

I am not interested in non-conventional uses of the term time. We have agreed that time is finite. Space and energy have existed for all time. There has never been a time when there was no space or energy. The state where there is no energy and no space time cannot happen. For something to happen, there has to be time. For a state of existence, there has to be space.
For causality to be meaningful, there has to be time. We agreed on a definition of to begin to exist have we not? Did that definition involve there being a time before when the thing did not exist? If time is finite, then whatever exists at time zero could not have begun to exist. Please don't go changing definitions this far into the debate. Time is time. I don't know about metaphoric time. What is this new type of time you have introduced into your argument?

[ToKnowHim]

You said:

I believe that space has existed for all time. There has never been a time when there was no space. Time and space are interconnected in such a way as to make it impossible to conceive space without time. I have said absolutely nothing about how the singularity came to exist. Because it did not come to exist. There was no time before time. There would have been no energy before the beginning of time.

Once again, I feel like this is what I've been trying to say. Space and time have coexisted together; no energy would have existed before the beginning of time. If space/time began to exist, and then energy began to exist (or began at the same 'time'), then this is the meat of my argument.

I have basically argued that there is NOT some natural thing 'x' that has always existed; therefore, the natural things that now exist had to have begun (come into being) at some point in time. Let’s call that point ‘n.’

Therefore, at some point in time before that – call that ‘n-1’ – there was nothing. If every natural thing began to exist at some point in time, then before that, there was nothing – even if there was no actual ‘time’ to be ‘before;’ logic leads us here. Whether we understand reality or not, it is what it is; ‘before’ need not be an actual point on the timeline, but it still exists.

[McCulloch]

I believe that space has existed for all time. There has never been a time when there was no space. Time and space are interconnected in such a way as to make it impossible to conceive space without time. I have said absolutely nothing about how the singularity came to exist. Because it did not come to exist. There was no time before time. There would have been no energy before the beginning of time.

Once again, I feel like this is what I've been trying to say. Space and time have coexisted together; no energy would have existed before the beginning of time. If space/time began to exist, and then energy began to exist (or began at the same 'time'), then this is the meat of my argument.

To begin means that there was a time previous where the thing did not exist. There is no time prior to the beginning of time. How can there be? Therefore, time cannot be said to have begun.

I have basically argued that there is NOT some natural thing 'x' that has always existed; therefore, the natural things that now exist had to have begun (come into being) at some point in time. Let’s call that point ‘n.’

Therefore, at some point in time before that – call that ‘n-1’ – there was nothing. If every natural thing began to exist at some point in time, then before that, there was nothing – even if there was no actual ‘time’ to be ‘before;’ logic leads us here.

We have agreed that time is finite. There are only two ways that a dimension can be finite: finite and bounded OR finite and unbounded. Let's deal with them separately.

If time is finite and bounded, then there is a point in time where there is no time previous to that point in time. Let's call that T₀. I believe that this time is the time of the Big Bang, but it is not necessary. Whatever existed at T₀ did not begin to exist because there is no time prior to T₀ when it could have not existed. Speaking of a point in time like T_-1 would be like talking about being colder than absolute zero or moving slower than a full stop or North of the North Pole.

If time is finite and unbounded, then time must be like a circle, finite length with no end point. If this is the case, then something that exists for the entire cycle did not begin to exist because there is no time in the cycle where it does not exist.

It is not my purpose to debate whether time is finite and bounded or finite and unbounded, because it really does not matter. In either case, there can be and there probably are natural things in the universe that have not had a beginning.

Whether we understand reality or not, it is what it is; ‘before’ need not be an actual point on the timeline, but it still exists.

If there is a point in time before T₀, then T₀ is not the beginning of time. This is why I say that the KCA requires that time be infinite. If time is finite and bounded, then the KCA requires that there be a time before the beginning of time. If time is finite and unbounded, then the KCA requires a time-like dimension perpendicular to the time we experience. Your argument requires that there be a point in time that is not a point in time.

[ToKnowHim]

What about the notion that time 'began' at the same point as space... no space existed 'before' it, nor energy, because there WAS no 'before.'

Then, time began to exist. That is the T0 point you referenced.

I see no reason to assume any natural thing is infinite, which includes time, space, and energy.

Even the energy of a singularity is not infinite; it is not literally infinitely dense; this is a shorthand that cosmologists use. The density is a number approaching infinity. To say that any natural thing is infinitely (large, hot, dense, length of time), etc. is to state that we have measured it in its entirety... which, by definition, is impossible.

Perhaps, then, the state of energy not being created or destroyed, but ALWAYS being there has only existed so long as energy itself has; at the beginning of the universe as we now know it.

But natural things do not simply 'exist.' If the laws of thermodynamics mean anything at all, they give us good reasons to insist that cause and effect is the norm, not the exception. I'm arguing for a non-natural cause which would exist 'outside of' the space/time continuum as we know it.

This is what I intend to cover in the next section, following your response to this. I still feel like I'm losing the debate, but that's ok. I'm learning stuff, which is what's important.

Besides, at least I'm *TRYING* to do something different!! I don't see WLC putting out any kind of effort into trying to make logically coherent arguments!

[McCulloch]

What about the notion that time 'began' at the same point as space... no space existed 'before' it, nor energy, because there WAS no 'before.'

Then, time began to exist. That is the T0 point you referenced.

I see no reason to assume any natural thing is infinite, which includes time, space, and energy.

I completely agree. Nothing is infinite. I make no claims of anything being infinite. Energy, because it cannot be created nor destroyed, has been in existence for all time. But time itself is finite, so for all time means something quite different from infinitely long.

But natural things do not simply 'exist.' If the laws of thermodynamics mean anything at all, they give us good reasons to insist that cause and effect is the norm, not the exception. I'm arguing for a non-natural cause which would exist 'outside of' the space/time continuum as we know it.

So, let's look for consistency in the way that we understand the universe. Everything that we know that had one or more causes, those causes are other natural things. Natural things are not known to begin to exist without a cause (with one possible exception at the quantum scale). And if we were to analyze the causes of any known thing, some of those causes would be a composite of smaller causes. As we continue to break thing down into smaller and smaller pieces, we will eventually arrive at particles of energy, which have most probably been in existence for all time. So, it appears as if the smallest building blocks of all natural things do just exist.

So you wish to propose a being that exists outside of time and space to explain the existence of stuff which appears to have existed for all time. This proposed being will just exist even though you have argued that things don't just exist.

Before you proceed, look up the logical fallacy known as special pleading. With a good understanding of this, you should be able yourself to write my next rebuttal.

Oh, and please review our agreed upon definition for to exist. Make sure that when you say that something exists outside of time and space, you are applying our agreed upon definition OR use some word other than exist to describe this being.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 181#662181

[ToKnowHim]

Actually, it's not a case of special pleading. I already made this very, very clear throughout the argument by specifying NATURAL 'x'.... If a deity exists, he/she/it/they are supernatural, which is outside the set of 'x' which includes all natural things.

Ok. Energy has existed FOR ALL TIME; but time itself is not infinite. Therefore, time began 'at some point in time'.

Since time is itself a NATURAL thing 'x' which began to exist, then it follows, from both our arguments, that time has a cause or causes.

Premise 9.
Natural things began to exist.

Premise 10.
Whatever the first natural thing ‘x’ to exist was, began to exist due to a natural cause.

Conclusion 5.
Nature was caused by that which is natural.

...
OR
...
Premise 11.
Natural things began to exist.

Premise 12.
Whatever the first natural thing ‘x’ to exist was, began to exist due to a cause that was not natural.

Conclusion 6.
Nature was caused by that which is not natural – i.e., something supernatural.