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]

[Replying to post 116 by For_The_Kingdom]

LOL well let me put it to you this way, William...that's not what I said, but it sure is what I believe.

Well 'okay'... while you sort out whatever it is you are trying to sort out, I will watch this...

[yt]zORUUqJd81M[/yt]

I'm curious as to what was the point of you posting this video...oh I get it..you wanted to make me laugh, after hearing the speaker ask the age-old, played out, atheistic question of "Well, why does God exist"?

As if this question haven't been answered over and over and over again..yet the atheist keep asking it as if it is some knock-out question that plagues us Christians lol.

Far from it, amigo.

[William]

[Replying to post 103 by Clownboat]

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...

From another perspective, if a creator (GOD) of this universe does in fact exist, then whether that GOD is necessary, is meaningless.

Since we don't know and thus cannot say for certain either way, expressing "GOD is not necessary" has to amount to the same thing as expressing "I will not accept any god concept as an explanation" although you did not write exactly that...you wrote "I will not accept a god concept as an explanation" but worded to give the impression one means 'any' when one says 'a'. You can of course correct me on that if necessary.

In terms of ones self (the individual) the idea of GOD as necessary or not, is not a question for science - or for that matter, any particular organised religions idea of 'what GOD is' but rather, is completely and utterly up to the individual to decide for their self and in that, science can and should have an opinion about this in relation to claims which are made which can be scientifically proven or shown to be untrue...which of course - in relation to the question of a creator of the universe...science is unable to show, one way or the other.

For me personally, I simply wonder that IF there IS a creator (GOD) responsible for this universe, THEN am I able to find clues therein which allow me to understand WHO this being is in terms of what is observable, as well as what is experienced?

Is it necessary for me to do this? I get to decide that, just like everyone else does, and for me it is at least necessary to try and find a reasonable answer to WHY I exist, in this universe, on this planet, in this present, without accepting or rejecting information out of hand, wherever that information comes from, unless the information tries to impose upon me that I should not be even asking such a question OR tries to impose upon me that I should accept *whatever* answer anyone cares to tell me regarding that.

Now I do not consider that I will necessarily have a complete answer to my question before my body bites the dust, but I already know I will be satisfied with the general answer I have already formulated regarding that question, and it has helped me grow into the person I am, which I also know I would not be had I not followed the impulse to at least TRY to find an answer to that question.

I accept that others do not find the question necessary enough to search for an answer - for all the various reasons the choose not to - but in that, I do not conflate their choices for NOT finding it necessary, with the idea that it is actually unnecessary, in the generic sense.

[William]

[Replying to post 121 by For_The_Kingdom]

I'm curious as to what was the point of you posting this video...

Well, if one were to watch the video one will see that it addresses questions the OP is...

...oh I get it..you wanted to make me laugh, after hearing the speaker ask the age-old, played out, atheistic question of "Well, why does God exist"?

No - I wanted to share something which is pertinent to the...

As if this question haven't been answered over and over and over again..

Which 'answer' should the individual accept as the truth of the matter and from that...

...yet the atheist keep asking it as if it is some knock-out question that plagues us Christians lol.

There are many things which plague Christians, but I didn't see that in the video because it was speaking too...

Far from it, amigo.

Perhaps if you watch the video, you might see just how 'far from it' you are in your assumptions as to why I posted it...

...'amigo'...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 111:

I previously posted that post there, but notice OP has been either unable, or unwilling to respond.

I caution the observer against thinking someone's a liar if they won't or can't show they speak truth - as I caution against 'em who'd get upset that ya do.

Speculation ain't proving nothing other'n we got us a speculator. Where has it been shown the universe was caused by anything other'n there it sits? Where has it been shown the universe came into existence from a previously there it wasn't state? Remember here - like the butterfly - things change from one form to 'em another.

I propose OP knows he can't show he speaks truth regarding his own P1, but prefers to ignore that gaping, chasmatological flaw in his argument.

And don't it beat all, we're left to speculate on why!


So we bring this to the implied conclusion - the universe can't have possibly existed into it an otherwise infinite past, but I'm here to tell it, I got me a god that did!

If god exists, he must, by the bones of this OP, have come him into being it.

And that, ladies and germophobes, is it.

We have a real or implied conclusion in this OP that relies on it a foregone conclusion - "He's up there yall, and not me nor him neither one like how it is you carry on!"

[Bust Nak]

Ok, so please articulate to me what is so special about the vacuums that allow only particles to appear and nothing else.

I can't - I don't know what is so special about the quantum vacuum that allows particles to appear and nothing else.

Because we need to keep that "I don't know" current.

I still don't know.

Bro, to be honest, I could care less about a vacuum...do virtual particles pop in to being, uncaused, out of NOTHINGNESS.

No, instead virtual particles pop into being, uncaused, out of a VACUUM.

and if not, what are you talking about?

I am giving a counter-example against P1 - There are some things, namely virtual particles, that/which begun to exist without a cause.

again...do...particles...pop..in..to..being..out..of..nothingness? If yes, please answer my follow up questions above.

Same as above. No.

But I did with my implication of (P1).

Right, but that is not relevant to my counter-example against P1, because it does not reference any nothingness what so ever.

And you stated in post 97 that you do NOT agree with P1 of the argument, which implies that things don't pop in to being uncaused out of nothing.

But I do agree with that particular part. Earlier I said that much we agree on, I accepted that particles do not pop into being out of nothing. You then pointed out we don't need to debate stuff that we agree on, to which I said sure, and suggested we go back to P1, remember?

Don't get all disingenuous on me, Bust Nak.

Trying reading my posts properly instead of accusing me of being disingenuous. Remember what happened last time?

Give better answers, based on the fact that if we are sitting here talking about virtual particles, I would know what we are talking about and therefore would not have to ask.

Better not make that assumption given your track record. Even in this post I have to keep reminding you of what was said.

Um, no. I was implying that I didn't comprehend whatever point it was that you were trying to make.

Well, l really can't be any more explicit: Virtual particles disprove P1.

Oh, I see what this is...you already stated (and it is clear) that you obviously can't answer the question with a yes or no..

Well obviously, since you didn't ask me a yes-no question. You asked me a why question, remember? Were you expecting a yes or no as an answer?

so we are back to your "I don't know".

Sure, it was your suggestion and not mine after all. So I don't know why you would expect me to guess at why we don't see chairs pop into being out of nothing without preconditions that will allow particles to come into being and not chairs.

My suggestion was that there ARE preconditions in a vacuum that will allow particles to come into being but not chairs, and that's why we don't see chairs pop into being out of a vacuum. What those preconditions are, I don't know.

We can just leave it there.

That's up to you. You know how much I like having the final word - without P1, your rendition of the Cosmological Argument is dead in the water.

[William]

[Replying to post 125 by Bust Nak]

I am giving a counter-example against P1 - There are some things, namely virtual particles, that/which begun to exist without a cause.

That is a theory - but even so, the reason the are called 'virtual' is because they are not real.

The idea is that space-time is full of these VPs and the consistent movement of instant creation and equally instant destruction of them does not in itself mean they come from 'nowhere' or 'have no cause'. Simply put, they don't stick around long enough to be considered real and to be studied as such. They are necessary to mathematical equations in relation to what is considered real. But they are no evidence of the magic that things spontaneously come into existence without cause.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, so please articulate to me what is so special about the vacuums that allow only particles to appear and nothing else.

I can't - I don't know what is so special about the quantum vacuum that allows particles to appear and nothing else.

Because we need to keep that "I don't know" current.

I still don't know.

Good enough for me.

Bro, to be honest, I could care less about a vacuum...do virtual particles pop in to being, uncaused, out of NOTHINGNESS.

No, instead virtual particles pop into being, uncaused, out of a VACUUM.

and if not, what are you talking about?

I am giving a counter-example against P1 - There are some things, namely virtual particles, that/which begun to exist without a cause.

Your counter example is fallacious, as it makes "nothingness" exclusive, which "nothingness" can't be exclusive, because if it were, it would be something.

Categorical fallacy.

But I did with my implication of (P1).

Right, but that is not relevant to my counter-example against P1, because it does not reference any nothingness what so ever.

Then I don't know what you are talking about...as it makes no sense.

And you stated in post 97 that you do NOT agree with P1 of the argument, which implies that things don't pop in to being uncaused out of nothing.

But I do agree with that particular part. Earlier I said that much we agree on, I accepted that particles do not pop into being out of nothing.

Dude, if nothing caused the particles to manifest itself, then the particles popped out of nothing, PERIOD. It doesn't matter whether this was within the realm of a vacuum or not...the particles popped out of nothing, period.

You then pointed out we don't need to debate stuff that we agree on, to which I said sure, and suggested we go back to P1, remember?

Yet, we are still having this discussion.

Don't get all disingenuous on me, Bust Nak.

Trying reading my posts properly instead of accusing me of being disingenuous. Remember what happened last time?

I remember a history of you being disingenuous. Yup.

Better not make that assumption given your track record. Even in this post I have to keep reminding you of what was said.

True, but that doesn't make your logic any less faulty.

Um, no. I was implying that I didn't comprehend whatever point it was that you were trying to make.

Well, l really can't be any more explicit: Virtual particles disprove P1.

I already stated why this is false..and I will do so again. If you are claiming that virtual particles pop in to being, uncaused out of nothing (in/from a quantum vacuum), you are making the "nothingness" within the vacuum exclusive, which is why I asked you what is so special about the vacuum, which you clearly stated, "I don't know.

And as I pointed out, you "don't know" because it is not POSSIBLE for you to know, because the logic behind the statement is faulty.

What you are saying is that the "nothingness" within the vacuum is EXCLUSIVE to only virtual particles and NOTHING else. This is clearly false, because "nothingness" cannot be exclusive to any thing...because "any..thing", would be "something"...but we are talking about "nothing".

I really can't get "any more explicit than that". And if you can't understand this, then I can't help ya, pal.

And not only that, but your logical is also flawed in light of my P2 threads, as our universe could not have "popped" in to being a finite time ago, under past-eternal (events in time) conditions.

So there are multiple reasons as to why your logic simply fails.

Oh, I see what this is...you already stated (and it is clear) that you obviously can't answer the question with a yes or no..

Well obviously, since you didn't ask me a yes-no question. You asked me a why question, remember? Were you expecting a yes or no as an answer?

I asked "what is so special about the quantum vacuum..", which ain't a yes/no question, but then again, it ain't a "why" question, either.

so we are back to your "I don't know".

Sure, it was your suggestion and not mine after all. So I don't know why you would expect me to guess at why we don't see chairs pop into being out of nothing without preconditions that will allow particles to come into being and not chairs.

So, you don't know why I am asking you why is "nothing" allowing virtual particles to pop into being out of nothing as opposed to any other arbitrary thing? I thought I answered this question in depth.

If you don't know by now, then I can't help you.

My suggestion was that there ARE preconditions in a vacuum that will allow particles to come into being but not chairs, and that's why we don't see chairs pop into being out of a vacuum. What those preconditions are, I don't know.

So, right back to making "nothing" exclusive. SMH.

We can just leave it there.

That's up to you. You know how much I like having the final word - without P1, your rendition of the Cosmological Argument is dead in the water.

You know how much I like giving people the last word, only to come back to say a few more things before I move on...




The KCA is as strong as it has ever been, leaving absurd/irrational objections to its truth value, dead in the water.

[Bust Nak]

That is a theory - but even so, the reason the are called 'virtual' is because they are not real.

But they are real, we can test for their existence with a fairly simple apparatus that you might perform in your own home, they stick around long enough to be studied.

Your counter example is fallacious, as it makes "nothingness" exclusive, which "nothingness" can't be exclusive, because if it were, it would be something.

No it does not, my counter example has nothing to do with "nothingness." Instead it deals with a vacuum, that's something.

Straw man fallacy.

Then I don't know what you are talking about...as it makes no sense.

I am talking about vacuums and virtual particles, presented as a counter-example to P1.

Dude, if nothing caused the particles to manifest itself, then the particles popped out of nothing, PERIOD.

That does not follow. Again, I point to my counter-example. Nothing caused the particles to manifest itself, yet the particles did not popped out of nothing, but out of a vacuum.

Yet, we are still having this discussion.

We have you to thank for that...

I remember a history of you being disingenuous. Yup.

That wasn't what happened. You misremember. In the last thread you claimed to have presented God as evidence; when I challenged you on that, it turned out you thought I asked you to present evidence for God. But that didn't stop you from calling me disingenuous when you misread what I said.

True, but that doesn't make your logic any less faulty.

That's moot since it's not faulty.

I already stated why this is false..and I will do so again. If you are claiming that virtual particles pop in to being, uncaused out of nothing...

Well, I am not. So that's moot. And if you can't understand this, then that's what I am here for, to give you help.

And not only that, but your logical is also flawed in light of my P2 threads...

Lets settle that part in the other thread, shall we?

I asked "what is so special about the quantum vacuum..", which ain't a yes/no question, but then again, it ain't a "why" question, either.

The record will show that the question was "why don't we see chairs and other arbitrary thing like bricks pop into being?" Either way, it wasn't a yes no question.

So, you don't know why I am asking you why is "nothing" allowing virtual particles to pop into being out of nothing as opposed to any other arbitrary thing?

Well, I do know why you are asking it, because you thought "uncaused" means the "same thing as popping out of nothing," they are not the same thing. What I didn't know was why you thought chairs wouldn't pop out of nothing if there was no preconditions that stops chairs popping out of nothing.

So, right back to making "nothing" exclusive.

I am doing nothing of the sort. I am point out that the quantum vacuum is a) exclusive and more importantly b) something.

The KCA is as strong as it has ever been, leaving absurd/irrational objections to its truth value, dead in the water.

That's kinda moot given the KCA was never strong to begin with. What you called "absurd/irrational objections" are simply a reflection of your equivocation of a vacuum and nothingness. Granted, a easy mistake to make, but not after I've spend post after post pointing out how they are different.

[Goose]

That is a theory - but even so, the reason the are called 'virtual' is because they are not real.

But they are real, we can test for their existence with a fairly simple apparatus that you might perform in your own home, they stick around long enough to be studied.

Virtual particles aren't real particles, Bust Nak.

Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler wrote a good article explaining what "virtual particles" are: Virtual Particles: What are they?

Here's a pertinent snippet:

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word particle in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A virtual particle, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a childs swing. If you give it a shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always the same, no matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion of the swing. Now compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what would happen if you started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back and forth swings. Well, the swing would start jiggling around all over the place, in a very unnatural motion, and it would not swing smoothly at all. The poor child on the swing would be furious at you, as youd be making his or her ride very uncomfortable. This unpleasant jiggling motion " this disturbance of the swing " is different from the swings natural and preferred back-and-forth regular motion just as a virtual particle disturbance is different from a real particle. If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So its not like a particle at all, and I wish we didnt call it that.

(Highlights added by me)

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 129 by Goose]


My limited understanding of virtual particles puts me on the side of Goose and William, though it pains me to say so.

I'd ask you now though, Goose, what merit, if any, you find in either premise of KCA. I don't recall you chiming in on the first thread.