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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 83:

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

You'll be hard pressed to prove the veracity of this claim.

SMH.

Shaking your head ain't gonna get you there.

If you can't show you speak truth, why should we believe anything you say?

Who can definitively prove the universe, like so many gods, didn't always exist, in one form or another?

Me.

Have at it then.

Or will you just shake your head?

Man can walk on the moon, but man can't deal with one P at a time?

There's more'n just the one premise in your OP, and I'm trying to help you and observers see the error in the first premise.

If your initial premise is flawed, any following conclusions are apt to be wrong.

Would you challenge the claim of me stating that the cause of your shattered windshield is a brick which popped to existence out of nothing and dropped on top of your windshield.

Would you challenge that?

I would challenge you to show I have a windshield, that it was shattered, and I got me a brick to blame for it.

When you could show you speak truth in that regard, then I'd fret how come it is bricks are a-poofin' themselves into existence.

I didn't know that I was supposed to do anything to show it. I thought it was one of those "it goes without saying" kind of things. I guess I was wrong.

Excellent example of keeping assumptions to a minimum.

That there is an apparent expansion of the universe leads only to the conclusion it may have been smaller - tiny - at one time, not that it began.

If we allow the assumption it began, we rightly ask how God began.

Can we all just agree that everything which begins to exist has a cause?

Sure we can - when you show such a claim to be truth.

I demonstrated why the concept is absurd. Address those points, please.

I'm not sure what you want me to address. Maybe point me to where ya did.

Then who's God's God?

Such an elementary question. Are atheists still asking this?

This'n does, everytime someone seeks to assert the universe has a cause (read creator god).

Good one about Trump, we seem to have some beliefs in common

[For_The_Kingdom]

No. I am saying that the "energy" (technically it's not energy but lets not get bogged down) within the vacuum does allow the particles to appear..and there is something special about this quantum vacuum, which makes it so exclusive that it allows particles to pop in to being (not from nothing but from the vacuum)..while completely excluding all other things.

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

Otherwise, please explain the exclusiveness (which you already stated that you don't know).

Why would you ask me to explain it if you know that I don't know?

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

1. Exclusiveness: the state of "nothingness"...

What's this about state of nothingness? I keep telling you it's a vacuum, exactly because I don't want to get into debating what nothingness means.

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

Yes or no. If so, why does this "nothingness" allow only particles to manifest out of nothing...and if not, what are you talking about?

More Exclusiveness: how many particles get to pop out of nothing from this vacuum?

What's this about popping "out of nothing from this vacuum?" It's EITHER popping out of nothing OR it's popping out of the vacuum because a vacuum is a thing. If it's popping out of a thing then it's not popping out of nothing. So why ask me about "nothing?"

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

A lot, a little?

Out of a vacuum? A lot.

How fast are the popping out?

Out of a vacuum? Very fast.

How does the state of nothingness come with specified values?

You tell me. I said nothing about a state of nothingness.

But I did with my implication of (P1). 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.

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

Thats all fine and dandy..the problem is; I wasn't asking specifically about virtual particles...

Ask better questions, if you wasn't asking specifically about virtual particles.

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.

which is ironic as to why you would think I was..considering we are already in the process of talking about it.

You say that yet the record will show that often you loss track of the conversation.

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

You tell me, I am not the one making "nothingness" exclusive.

Why ask me? When I am not the one making "nothingness" exclusive.

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

We can just leave it there.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 107 by For_The_Kingdom]

All I want to talk about is whether it is rational/irrational to believe that things can pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that it is irrational to believe that things can pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing.

What now?

We move to P2, that's what.

Are you going to argue that it is therefore rational to believe that things can pop in to being, caused, out of nothing?

William...based on everything you heard from me this thread, why would you postulate me arguing a thing like that??

[For_The_Kingdom]

You claim to know how the universe began

Simply not true. No where in any part of P1 is there a mention of the universe, period...much less how it began.

So you're going to be just stunned, right, when we get to P2 and it turns out the universe began?

?

Your car alarm goes off. You run out in the yard and find your windshield smashed. A guy with a brick says, "It wasn't me. This god just popped into existence and smashed your windshield and then disappeared."

I'll accept that the brick popped into existence when you accept that the god did.

I believe in God, wiploc.

*sigh*

It is important that you respond, because it helps drive home the point of how ridiculous the whole "popping into being out of nothing" thing is.

I hope I have conveyed how well I agree that your hypothetical situation was ridiculous.

But you didn't, wiploc.

Have you read my posts on this thread? I've explained to multiple folks why you should agree with me..now, if my answers aren't good enough, then I can't help you.

Well, then, I'd better absent myself from this thread before I start insulting you back.

I certainly didn't mean to insult you (or anyone), and if you feel that I did, my apologies. That being said; if you feel the need to absent yourself from this thread, by all means...do just that.

And I don't know why you think I am confused about anything that you said.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, pretending I didn't think they were deliberate misrepresentations.

Yes, it's definitely time for me to leave.

If we can't agree as to whether or not things pop into being, uncaused out of nothing...let us at least agree to that^.

[William]

[Replying to post 113 by For_The_Kingdom]

We move to P2, that's what.

Okay - I seem to recall that you were going to start a new thread for P2, is that correct?

If so, please do.

William...based on everything you heard from me this thread, why would you postulate me arguing a thing like that??

For_The_Kingdom, perhaps I mistook something you said in this thread which gave me that impression. Something along the lines of "GOD created this universe out of nothing'. or words to that effect.

But it appears from your reply, that you said no such thing, so thanks for making that clear.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 113 by For_The_Kingdom]

We move to P2, that's what.

Okay - I seem to recall that you were going to start a new thread for P2, is that correct?

If so, please do.

I will..just have a few things to iron out here first.

William...based on everything you heard from me this thread, why would you postulate me arguing a thing like that??

For_The_Kingdom, perhaps I mistook something you said in this thread which gave me that impression. Something along the lines of "GOD created this universe out of nothing'. or words to that effect.

But it appears from your reply, that you said no such thing, so thanks for making that clear.

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

[wiploc]

...let us at least agree to that^.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Are you saying that if the universe began to exist, it wouldn't have a cause?

I'll say that. If the whole universe (all of existence) had a beginning, there wouldn't be anything else to act as a cause.

So basically, you are saying "Hey man, I am all for the idea of the universe popping into being, uncaused, out of nothing".

SMH. Anything but the "G" word, right?

You need to realize that the attachment to the gods is yours.
This "anything but the 'G' word" stems from your attachment to god concepts.

I don't see any reason as to why an atheist would not be open to a god if one could be shown to be at least likely or needed.

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, however, I understand that having a pretend enemy of your god does help to unite the religious.

Unfortunately, this Us vs Them mentality is very effective at creating and sustaining the unity of a group, but it ignores the fact that most atheist would accept a god if one could be shown to be needed. This refutes your "anything but the 'G' word".

Actually, this "anything but the G word" fits perfectly...due to the fact that I am sitting here arguing with a few individuals on here about the probability of the universe popping in to existence out of nothing.

Now, I don't believe a rational human being would believe such a thing...but I've come to realize just how bad people would like to keep the "God" hypothesis out of the equation at all costs.

They would rather believe that the universe popped into being uncaused out of NOTHING before they even attempt to believe in the "G" word.

I mean, the concept of something popping into being uncaused out of nothing is about the highest unlikely probability, not only on physical earth, but also in heaven.

And to believe that, before you believe in God..yeah...anything but the "G" word.

[William]

[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]

[marco]

I mean, the concept of something popping into being uncaused out of nothing is about the highest unlikely probability, not only on physical earth, but also in heaven.

And to believe that, before you believe in God..yeah...anything but the "G" word.

You are giggling at theorists, but we don't all have theories, either that the supersonic jet emerged from rock or from the mind of God. The latter is the comforting alternative employed to explain the voice that was thunder. We now know better. Any explanation is better than ignorance, I suppose, but why is it necessary for the ordinary man to propose reasons for the beginnings of matter? The simple statement: "I have no idea" suffices, and does not require us to give God a suit of clothes and maybe a whistle.

Absurdities do occur when we struggle with quantum physics, so we should not be too ready to laugh at what seems impossible be it God or Big Bang or whatever else is suggested.


With Socrates, it's wise to admit our ignorance, rather than employ our imagination.