The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[AndyT_81]

Calling all atheists and agnostics (and anyone else for that matter). What are your most serious contentions with the Kalam Cosmological argument, i.e.:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist (demonstrated either via the impossibility of an infinite past or scientific evidence)
3. Therefore the universe began to exist

What is your major objection? Do you think QM disproves (1)? Or do you think that an infinite past is possible, thereby disproving (2)? Or do you think we can't get to God from reasonable arguments stemming from the conclusion?

Thanks in advance for your input

[Artie]

Similarly, the existence of quantum fields with the appropriate characteristics, or space-time itself, is a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) cause of the existence of virtual particles. To affirm otherwise is to agree that something can come from absolute nothing.

You mean like so? http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/ ... thing.html

[AndyT_81]

Hi Artie,

Presumably this is referring to either the Vilenkin or Hartle-Hawking mechanism of universe genesis - if so, please see my response to Divine Insight a few post back.

[Artie]

Hi Artie,
Presumably this is referring to either the Vilenkin or Hartle-Hawking mechanism of universe genesis - if so, please see my response to Divine Insight a few post back.

There's a video in the link 2:52 long just see it and here is a link with more interesting information. http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/ ... -vilenkin/

[NoisForm]

Not solely, but if oxygen was removed you would cease to exist given the type of being you are (i.e. given your form). Therefore the presence of oxygen is a necessary but not a sufficient cause of your continuing existence. It was also a necessary part (but not sufficient) of your efficient cause - that is, you would not have been able to be conceived without oxygen.

Similarly, the existence of quantum fields with the appropriate characteristics, or space-time itself, is a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) cause of the existence of virtual particles. To affirm otherwise is to agree that something can come from absolute nothing.

I'll have to disagree with the way you are using the word cause, that is, in a way that encompasses all future conditions to maintain the existence of something after its initial coming into existence. The result of calling everything that qualifies as a condition, a 'cause', is that there is no distinction between the two, and I believe there is.

...necessary but not a sufficient cause of your continuing existence...

This is key I think. First, oxygen would not be either a necessary or a sufficient cause for my existence, but rather a necessary condition. Specifically, consider you're use of 'continuing' existence. We aren't speaking of the continuing existence of me, but rather the initial cause of my existence. These are quite different things.

The cause of my existence occurred once and only once, and is not some ongoing string of events. The conditions of my continued existence includes the presence of oxygen. The cause of my existence involved the fertilization of an egg.

I found a few things that speak to this distinction;

"Commonly we distinguish the strike of the match, as a cause of the match lighting, from the presence of oxygen, as a mere condition"

"People distinguish between a cause (e.g., a malfunctioning component in an airplane causing it to crash) and a condition (e.g., gravity) that merely enables the cause to yield its effect."

[AndyT_81]

Hi Artie,

That video link was just the usual pop-science treatment of the issue, with such nonsense sayings as "nothing may actually be something". The link you gave is more substantive, but still falls short. First, the Hartle-Hawking theory requires the dubious notion of imaginary time - something which Hawking has admitted is purely instrumental in character, not something to be taken to be ontologically real. Second, there are issues with the theory which I raised in my response to Divine Insight that I referred you to previously (it still requires some disembodied "law" which makes very little sense). Lastly, in that link the quantum tunneling of Vilenkin's model is suggested, but I treated that in my previous response also.

Hi NoisForm,

I have no big issue with you calling such things as oxygen conditions of our existence, rather than causes, as long as you realise that such condition/causes are causally efficacious. It is no accident that you require oxygen to stay in existence - "conditions" as you like to call them, aren't causally unrelated to the thing they are conditions for. If they were, there would be no reason for why you would die in the absence of oxygen, say - that would be inexplicable.

If you feel more comfortable with it, just change the first premise to:
1. Everything that begins to exist requires a cause/condition

Either way, I don't see how (1) has been refuted yet. [/quote]

[Artie]

Hi Artie,

That video link was just the usual pop-science treatment of the issue, with such nonsense sayings as "nothing may actually be something". The link you gave is more substantive, but still falls short. First, the Hartle-Hawking theory requires the dubious notion of imaginary time - something which Hawking has admitted is purely instrumental in character, not something to be taken to be ontologically real. Second, there are issues with the theory which I raised in my response to Divine Insight that I referred you to previously (it still requires some disembodied "law" which makes very little sense). Lastly, in that link the quantum tunneling of Vilenkin's model is suggested, but I treated that in my previous response also.

Maybe we have just lost ourselves in details. Isn't it just simpler to say that "1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause" applies to the conditions inside our universe so the argument is actually self refuting? It requires the same conditions that originated with our universe to exist without the existence of our universe.

Isn't the phrase "begins to exist" meaningless in itself? Either
1. It "begins to exist" from nothing or
2. It is a rearrangement of something already existing?

Just trying to get back to the basic questions of the OP.

[NoisForm]

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

I find no justification for this special category of 'things that do not begin to exist', which is of course implied by the creation of the category 'things that begin to exist'. It appears to be nothing more than a synonym for 'god', not so cleverly disguised.

If it is not merely a synonym for god, please indicate what other things are part of this set.

If you cannot in fact show that anything else is a member of this set, than it is indeed only a synonym for god.

That being the case, you have placed god into the very definition of the premise that is supposed to prove said god. That begs the question and is entirely circular.


Oh, and a side note; When making a claim like this;

...(2) you are assuming that only science can give us an understanding of the truths of reality.

It would be stronger if you hadn't previously stated;

I don't like to base my views of this argument on what is merely possible, but rather what science is currently telling us.

Those appear a bit at odds with one another. In the latter, you say you prefer to base your views on science, while in the former, you criticized Goat for relying on the efficacy of science. So, are you stating that science is a sufficient tool as in your second statement, or implying that it isn't, as with your first?

[NoisForm]

...as long as you realise that such condition/causes...
...Everything that begins to exist requires a cause/condition...

You may wish to read my post again, as you seem to have missed my meaning? I say this because in both cases above, you are still conflating condition and cause, which is a mistake. They are quite distinct as I have pointed out. This apparently wasn't clear to you.

If you could perhaps quote my previous post directly, and object to the specific points that I addressed, it may help clarify things.

..."conditions" as you like to call them,...

I like to call them conditions (unnecessary scare quotes noted), because they are conditions...conditions (which are current and ongoing) that are entirely distinct from the cause (a one-time, past event) of my existence.

...aren't causally unrelated to the thing they are conditions for.

Your meaning is rather unclear here. The point; the conditions for my continued existence (e.g., the breakfast I ate, the job I worked yesterday to get money to eat, etc.) are most certainly not the cause of my existence - they are entirely distinct from that.

[AndyT_81]

Hi Artie,

Maybe we have just lost ourselves in details. Isn't it just simpler to say that "1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause" applies to the conditions inside our universe so the argument is actually self refuting? It requires the same conditions that originated with our universe to exist without the existence of our universe.

No, I don't just think the first premise would only apply within our universe (assuming there are others) - the argument for its truth is not based on induction. Rather it is a broad metaphysical claim - things do not come into being completely causally disconnected from any thing. Or in other words, from nothing, nothing comes.

Isn't the phrase "begins to exist" meaningless in itself? Either
1. It "begins to exist" from nothing or
2. It is a rearrangement of something already existing?

I don't think that exhausts the possibilities (though I don't think (1) is actually a possibility). I would add 3. Is brought into being without the use of any pre-existing material.

Hi NoisForm,

I find no justification for this special category of 'things that do not begin to exist', which is of course implied by the creation of the category 'things that begin to exist'. It appears to be nothing more than a synonym for 'god', not so cleverly disguised.

If it is not merely a synonym for god, please indicate what other things are part of this set.

Some in philosophy think of abstract objects (like say, mathematical truths) are eternal and therefore do not begin to exist. So yes, there are other things that are part of this set. However, I don't see that that matters, see below

That being the case, you have placed god into the very definition of the premise that is supposed to prove said god. That begs the question and is entirely circular.

How so? (1) could be true without actually invoking the notion of God - it could be the case that for all existing things, they began to exist. In other words, an infinite regress. If this is the case, then (1) does not necessarily include the concept of God as you claim.

Those appear a bit at odds with one another. In the latter, you say you prefer to base your views on science, while in the former, you criticized Goat for relying on the efficacy of science. So, are you stating that science is a sufficient tool as in your second statement, or implying that it isn't, as with your first?

As your quote shows, I did not criticize Goat for relying on the efficacy of science (as you try to have me say), I criticized Goat for assuming that only science can give us an understanding of the truths of reality. So there is no contradiction here - I think that both science and philosophy/metaphysical reasoning can give us an understanding of the truths of reality. [/i]

[instantc]

I find no justification for this special category of 'things that do not begin to exist', which is of course implied by the creation of the category 'things that begin to exist'. It appears to be nothing more than a synonym for 'god', not so cleverly disguised.

I'm not an expert on this argument, but I think this is a common misunderstanding. The existence of this special category is not a premise of the argument but follows logically from its premises. If (1) everything that begins to exist requires that something existed prior to it, and (2) infinite regress of past time is impossible, then it logically follows that something existed outside the physical time that made the beginning of the physical time possible.

...aren't causally unrelated to the thing they are conditions for.

Your meaning is rather unclear here. The point; the conditions for my continued existence (e.g., the breakfast I ate, the job I worked yesterday to get money to eat, etc.) are most certainly not the cause of my existence - they are entirely distinct from that.

I think the idea is that both necessary causes and conditions stand equally in causal relations. That is, removing it from the equation makes the outcome impossible. Thus, the argument doesn't claim that everything that begins to exist has to be caused to existence, as you define the word cause, but rather that everything that begins to exist requires that something else existed prior to it.