The Kalam Cosmological Argument Discussion

[Coloradomtnman]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary
by Bill Ramey

The cosmological argument for God's existence began with Plato and ever since has been defended--and attacked--by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Most people know the argument only its Thomistic or Leibnizian form, but a lesser-known Arabic version of it has received recent attention from scholars since the 1979 publication of The Kalam Cosmological Argument by philosopher William Lane Craig. Most of what follows comes from Craig's defense of the argument, though I will use my own words and sometimes my own examples and comments.

The kalam argument has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word kalam means "speech," but more broadly it means "natural theology" or "philosophical theism" (Craig, Kalam, 4). The distinctive feature of kalam-style cosmology is its stress on the impossibility of the actual infinite. Put simply, kalam arguments try to demonstrate (1) that the existence of an actual infinite (a concept from modern set theory to be discussed shortly) is impossible and (2) that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence must have had a beginning.

Here is an outline of the argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.
The KCA works by supporting the (a) option of each premise and then using it in the following premise. Hence the KCA is actually a series of connected arguments. To be successful each of these arguments must be logically valid and have true premises. Since the KCA is a series of arguments that take the form of a valid argument known as a disjunctive syllogism, the KCA's formal validity is beyond dispute. To be a sound argument, however, the KCA must have true premises, and thus the bulk of this presentation will attempt to support the premises.
Let's begin with (1): the universe either had a beginning or did not have a beginning. Craig offers three arguments in support of a universe with a beginning. Two are philosophical; one is scientific. Here is the first philosophical argument:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

Here is the summary that Kalam posted a link to so that everyone who wishes to can read it.

Shortened to comply with board copyright rules

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Alright, Kalam, in regards to what you posted in my other thread:

Why is time and spacetime not important when speaking cosmologically? I don't understand what you mean so could you clarify?

 

[Kalam]

Alright, Kalam, in regards to what you posted in my other thread:

Why is time and spacetime not important when speaking cosmologically? I don't understand what you mean so could you clarify?

The idea that space and time exist as parts of a single, continuous aggregate doesn't eliminate the need for a cosmological prime mover. I think I understand what you're suggesting, though: because the concept of stimulus and response is dependent on the passage of time, stimuli and responses can't precede time (spacetime) itself. The problem with this argument, I think, is that it implies either that the universe created itself from nothing, or that the universe has existed perpetually. Both of these ideas are demonstrably impossible.

Anybody familiar with physics feel free to tell me if I'm making a fool of myself...

 

[editec]

You cannot fool me, young man.

It's TURTLES...turtles all the way down!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The idea that space and time exist as parts of a single, continuous aggregate doesn't eliminate the need for a cosmological prime mover. I think I understand what you're suggesting, though: because the concept of stimulus and response is dependent on the passage of time, stimuli and responses can't precede time (spacetime) itself. The problem with this argument, I think, is that it implies either that the universe created itself from nothing, or that the universe has existed perpetually. Both of these ideas are demonstrably impossible.

Anybody familiar with physics feel free to tell me if I'm making a fool of myself...

Well, I would argue that one can't demonstrate the impossibility of two ways in which the Universe didn't come into existence, but I get your point.

I would say that because human beings don't understand the laws of physics in a singularity, from which it seems the Universe expanded, perhaps in that situation the Newtonian law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or, in other words, cause and effect, isn't the Prime Mover. Perhaps what "caused" the "Big Bang" is something outside of human experience and understanding. Those things which are outside of human experience and understanding, historically, tend to be labeled or attributed to God.

I think the human psychological need to have a cause may blind us to what may have really happened.

 

[Gunny]

The idea that space and time exist as parts of a single, continuous aggregate doesn't eliminate the need for a cosmological prime mover. I think I understand what you're suggesting, though: because the concept of stimulus and response is dependent on the passage of time, stimuli and responses can't precede time (spacetime) itself. The problem with this argument, I think, is that it implies either that the universe created itself from nothing, or that the universe has existed perpetually. Both of these ideas are demonstrably impossible.

Anybody familiar with physics feel free to tell me if I'm making a fool of myself...

Well, I would argue that one can't demonstrate the impossibility of two ways in which the Universe didn't come into existence, but I get your point.

I would say that because human beings don't understand the laws of physics in a singularity, from which it seems the Universe expanded, perhaps in that situation the Newtonian law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or, in other words, cause and effect, isn't the Prime Mover. Perhaps what "caused" the "Big Bang" is something outside of human experience and understanding. Those things which are outside of human experience and understanding, historically, tend to be labeled or attributed to God.

I think the human psychological need to have a cause may blind us to what may have really happened.

I agree, but in the opposite direction. "God" could indeed just be a force of some kind beyond the limitation of human intellect. That does not however dismiss "God", or a creator, but IMO only reaffirms it.

The expansion of the universe is a man-made theory. It is not fact and does not contain the two key ingredients -- an established center and established boundaries.

The Big Bang, a scientific theory, defies its own laws by creating something from nothing, a scientific impossibility.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I agree, but in the opposite direction. "God" could indeed just be a force of some kind beyond the limitation of human intellect. That does not however dismiss "God", or a creator, but IMO only reaffirms it.

You're right in that it doesn't preclude that there is a creator, but I would say that is also doesn't dismiss that there isn't a creator for just the very same reason. I think that since we don't or can't know what created the Universe, to assume its a creator is just as much an assumption as any other assumption. Its just assumption with just as much credibility as any argument.

The expansion of the universe is a man-made theory. It is not fact and does not contain the two key ingredients -- an established center and established boundaries.

However, there is significant evidence to support the theory of expansion: #1 the red shifted light of stars moving away from us which is a result of the Doppler effect on light waves and was discovered by Edwin Hubble, and #2 microwave radiation coming from everypoint in the observable Universe.

I don't what an established center or boundaries has to do with supporting or not supporting the Big Bang. Clarify what you mean, Gunny?

The Big Bang, a scientific theory, defies its own laws by creating something from nothing, a scientific impossibility.

Its not that the Big Bang defies its own laws, because that would be like saying the black holes defy the laws of physics. Its just the the laws of physics aren't and probably can't be understood in a singularity. The Big Bang doesn't defy the laws of physics, the laws of physics changed, maybe numerous times, during and immediately after the Big Bang.

That isn't to say that the Big Bang is fact. And no scientist would put it that way; it is, after all, a theory. Its just that its a theory with a lot of supporting evidence and a theory that has helped to explain and assisted physicists to better understand some of the observed astronomical phenomena.

 

[Kalam]

Well, I would argue that one can't demonstrate the impossibility of two ways in which the Universe didn't come into existence, but I get your point.

I guess you're right.

Something coming from nothing is axiomatically impossible, and a universe with a period of existence stretching into negative infinity would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. That would have been a better way to put it.

I would say that because human beings don't understand the laws of physics in a singularity, from which it seems the Universe expanded, perhaps in that situation the Newtonian law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or, in other words, cause and effect, isn't the Prime Mover.

The stimulus would have existed distinctly from the response (the response being the singularity and its expansion) and presumably would not have been bound by any laws of physics. Still, this assumes that the Big bang occurred when the universe expanded from a singularity. I think that at least a few hypotheses concerning the Big Bang don't include singularities in their descriptions of the universe's formation.

Incidentally, you've raised an interesting point and made me wonder about the nature of singularities. What laws of physics, if any, govern singularities? Can anything even occur within an entity with zero volume?

Perhaps what "caused" the "Big Bang" is something outside of human experience and understanding. Those things which are outside of human experience and understanding, historically, tend to be labeled or attributed to God.

Maybe our natural understanding of existence has limits. As a subscriber to the cosmological argument, I'm convinced that a supernatural explanation is absolutely necessary in this case, in spite of the fact that ridiculous supernatural explanations have been to explain natural phenomena in the past. I maintain that the formation of the universe is the singular event for which a natural explanation cannot conceivably exist.

I think the human psychological need to have a cause may blind us to what may have really happened.

Unfortunately, our examination of the universe can only take place within the psychological framework of Homo sapiens... unless we're able to make contact with another species capable of communication and abstract thought.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Something coming from nothing is axiomatically impossible, and a universe with a period of existence stretching into negative infinity would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. That would have been a better way to put it.

Now from a physics point of view that is certainly a great point, and I can only agree. So, we can agree, with some certainty, that spacetime, the Universe, reality as we know it has a definite beginning.

The stimulus would have existed distinctly from the response (the response being the singularity and its expansion) and presumably would not have been bound by any laws of physics. Still, this assumes that the Big bang occurred when the universe expanded from a singularity. I think that at least a few hypotheses concerning the Big Bang don't include singularities in their descriptions of the universe's formation.

What I mean to say is, maybe there wasn't anything before the Big Bang. I know, I know, its impossible to get something from nothing. In this Universe, but before the Big Bang, maybe it was possible. In fact, I would say that to make that assumption is just as credible as saying God did it.

Incidentally, you've raised an interesting point and made me wonder about the nature of singularities. What laws of physics, if any, govern singularities? Can anything even occur within an entity with zero volume?

Is it zero volume? If you think of those computer generated models a black holes is sphere where spacetime is warped almost like a three deminsional (or technically four deminsional) whirlpool. So its not zero volume, its just extremely dense. Almost infnitely so. Because, if you remember Einstein's famous equation E=mC2 (how do you do a superscript?) for anything that has mass to reach the speed of light would increase in mass to infinity which is why nothing can go the speed of light except massless particles or waves or both like light. And if light can't escape the gravitational tug of a black hole... Maybe that's not true, maybe its that light can't escape from the warped spacetime? I don't know but its fun to speculate!

Maybe our natural understanding of existence has limits. As a subscriber to the cosmological argument, I'm convinced that a supernatural explanation is absolutely necessary in this case, in spite of the fact that ridiculous supernatural explanations have been to explain natural phenomena in the past. I maintain that the formation of the universe is the singular event for which a natural explanation cannot conceivably exist.

Okay. Now why do you think that? Why can't there be a natural explanation. Actually, if we were able to come up with an equation that explained the beginning of the Universe, and it was God, wouldn't that be a natural explanation?

Its kinda like factories. Most people would assume they aren't natural. But I, even as a stodgy environmentalist, would say that factories are natural. Otherwise it would the same as saying bee hives aren't natural. So if God is the creator of the Universe, then there could be nothing more natural than God?

Unfortunately, our examination of the universe can only take place within the psychological framework of Homo sapiens... unless we're able to make contact with another species capable of communication and abstract thought.

Yep, but sometimes there are human beings who attain to new level of thinking (like Einstein and Newton and Galileo) that expands all human psychological capacity. Maybe someday we'll get to where we can explain the Universe in an equation that somehow includes the inherent flaw of human perception and understanding, but not any time soon, and, in my opinion, probably not. Cause then, wouldn't we be gods?

 

[Kalam]

What I mean to say is, maybe there wasn't anything before the Big Bang. I know, I know, its impossible to get something from nothing. In this Universe, but before the Big Bang, maybe it was possible. In fact, I would say that to make that assumption is just as credible as saying God did it.

The idea of a universe before the Big Bang contradicts the Big Bang theory itself, doesn't it? What you're suggesting is an impossibility, and I don't think that we can simply ignore that fact because of our own limited understanding. I disagree that believing that the universe spontaneously created itself out of absolute nothingness is a more credible and logical theory than the idea of a cosmological unmoved mover.

Is it zero volume? If you think of those computer generated models a black holes is sphere where spacetime is warped almost like a three deminsional (or technically four deminsional) whirlpool. So its not zero volume, its just extremely dense. Almost infnitely so. Because, if you remember Einstein's famous equation E=mC2 (how do you do a superscript?) for anything that has mass to reach the speed of light would increase in mass to infinity which is why nothing can go the speed of light except massless particles or waves or both like light. And if light can't escape the gravitational tug of a black hole... Maybe that's not true, maybe its that light can't escape from the warped spacetime? I don't know but its fun to speculate!

For the most part, the subject of advanced theoretical physics is beyond my limit of comprehension. It's difficult for me to fully understand something that, so far, is unobservable and only exists theoretically, like singularities, the masslessness of light quantums, etc. But, you're right; it's fun to speculate.

Okay. Now why do you think that? Why can't there be a natural explanation.

Because the natural universe could not have been created by something natural - something within its own self.

Actually, if we were able to come up with an equation that explained the beginning of the Universe, and it was God, wouldn't that be a natural explanation?

Since the creator is distinct from creation, an explanation including God would be supernatural.

Its kinda like factories. Most people would assume they aren't natural. But I, even as a stodgy environmentalist, would say that factories are natural. Otherwise it would the same as saying bee hives aren't natural. So if God is the creator of the Universe, then there could be nothing more natural than God?

God would transcend all of the laws of nature, so I think it would be inaccurate to describe God as natural, because that would suggest that God was bound by those laws.

Yep, but sometimes there are human beings who attain to new level of thinking (like Einstein and Newton and Galileo) that expands all human psychological capacity. Maybe someday we'll get to where we can explain the Universe in an equation that somehow includes the inherent flaw of human perception and understanding, but not any time soon, and, in my opinion, probably not. Cause then, wouldn't we be gods?

We'd simply be more knowledgeable. If knowledge was all that was required to attain god-status, there would be quite a few among us already.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Time, event and cause presuppose previous times, events and causes -the naturalist infinite argument . As Existence is all, it can have no transcendent cause- the naturalist spatial argument.
As Kyle Williams notes :'"In an infinite number of days, every day must arrive. A beginningless timetable, though, doesn't begin on a particular day. By definition, it has no beginning at all. It has been progressing day by day forever, and it is added to the infinite timeline."
Aquinas himself knew that. The argument assumes what it needs to show, a beginning.
Astro-physics, as Victor Stenger notes , presents " nothing" as quantum energy, and as David Mills notes, the law of conservation applies to that energy, which means eternal energy and thus eternal Existence. Please, folks don't misuse the law of thermodynamics against scientific theories. The Big Bang was not a beginning of Existence but a mere transformation .
Theologians like Keith Ward have no problem with eternal Existence as they assume an eternal Sustainer for it- Aquinas's First Cause, which is not temporal horizontal] but explanatory [ vertical]. His arguments also beg the question. He states that one cannot take away that cause without taking away the intermediate ones but that assumes a first cause. And his argument from contingency assumes the Necessary Being. All this is theological speculation based on guesses and it must be's.

 

[Terral]

Hi Colorado and Kalam:

First of all, the Big Bang Theory of Creation is A MYTH (my thread), which represents the big hurdle for those among you seeking ‘the truth’ on this Genesis Topic. The Big Bang represents the moment that a ‘previously-existing’ Creation became ‘formless and void’ so that darkness was upon the face of the deep. Genesis 1:2. Therefore, much of what these USMB members are proposing has no basis in reality whatsoever . . .

Here is an outline of the argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.

“In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1.

This “The Earth” is NOT the broken universe you see today, but was a perfect/mature “Singularity Expression” Creation that existed in perfection for billions and billions and billions of years (Ecc. 1:9-11) as we know them today. Again, the “Big Bang” (Wiki = about 14 billion years ago) represents the moment when that perfect creation (Adam) was destroyed . . .

2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.

This Creation was definitely brought about for a ‘cause’ that is beyond the realms of the Creation itself, i.e., “In the beginning GOD created . . .”.

3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

While your postulates appear nonsensical, I suppose your need to connect ‘cause’ to ‘action’ (creation) makes this Creation Topic that much more ‘personal.’ We can agree that God has personal reasons for calling the Heaven (Word/Son = F+S+HS = Realm Of The Word*) and The Earth (Adam/son = heavens, heaven and earth = Adamic Realm*) into existence, even if perhaps one in one hundred of you have the personal ‘cause’ to believe my testimony. :0)

The KCA works by supporting the (a) option of each premise and then using it in the following premise. Hence the KCA is actually a series of connected arguments. To be successful each of these arguments must be logically valid and have true premises. Since the KCA is a series of arguments that take the form of a valid argument known as a disjunctive syllogism, the KCA's formal validity is beyond dispute. To be a sound argument, however, the KCA must have true premises, and thus the bulk of this presentation will attempt to support the premises.

Since the Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A MYTH, then any allegations of ‘true premises’ go right out the proverbial window. :0)

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary

Here is the summary that Kalam posted a link to so that everyone who wishes to can read it.

Shortened to comply with board copyright rules

Giving us a link to a mountain of data does nothing to support your OP hypothesis at all. Just how much of the Bill Ramey Summary shall I ‘quote >>’ to address your Topic? No thank you. Perhaps I can address the statements of other USMB members:

The idea that space and time exist as parts of a single, continuous aggregate doesn't eliminate the need for a cosmological prime mover.

Remove the negatives from your hypothesis and perhaps we will have something to debate. Rather than thinking that anything was ‘created’ by the Big Bang, wake up to the reality that a previously-existing perfect universe (blue sphere) was ‘destroyed’ about 14 billion years ago ‘and’ we are looking at the remnants of that shattered universe (now triune) in the cosmos on a clear night.

I think I understand what you're suggesting, though: because the concept of stimulus and response is dependent on the passage of time, stimuli and responses can't precede time (spacetime) itself.

No. Your ‘perception’ of stimulus and response are dependent upon your ‘concept’ of the passage of time, stimuli and responses that ‘can’ and ‘do’ precede time itself. This Adamic Creation is a mere ‘bubble’ that contains time and space (blue sphere again), as two components of the trinue “The Earth,” while “The Heaven/Word” (F+S+HS) contains its own values of time ‘and’ space relative to the broken components of ‘that’ almost-infinite creation. Then again, God’s Infinite Realm contains ‘infinite’ hosts (‘you are gods’ = Ps. 82:6, Jn 10:34), that are frozen perfectly still from ‘our’ Adamic Creation perspective. In a very similar way, ‘time’ is ‘almost frozen still’ in the almost-infinite realm of “Heaven;” also from our Adamic Creation perspective in this now-broken universe. In short, this Adamic Universe is a “Matrix” (water witness host) for a “Heaven” reality that is also a “Matrix” for what is ‘real’ in God’s Infinite Realm (far left). I am betting that the majority here would rather take the blue pill . . . and go back to sleep in the comfort of delusion . . . :0)

The problem with this argument, I think, is that it implies either that the universe created itself from nothing, or that the universe has existed perpetually. Both of these ideas are demonstrably impossible.

Anybody familiar with physics feel free to tell me if I'm making a fool of myself...

While I am quite familiar with the physics of the ‘three’ creations (God’s Infinite Realm, Heaven = Word Realm, Earth = this Adamic Realm), your proposals are based upon an errant interpretation of the “Big Bang Theory Of Creation” that is definitely A MYTH. The Genesis 1:1 “The Earth” Creation (Adam) included every particle of matter in the visible universe ‘and’ every corresponding particle of ‘heavens’ (in golden/yellow on right) matter currently ‘separated’ from this earthy creation. In other words, your physical body also has a ‘spirit’ counterpart that is very much ‘invisible,’ which defines MUCH more about your humanity than anything ‘seen’ in your physical body. Even so, the place where your physical body ‘and’ your spirit body overlap is represented by your own ‘soul’ (in red); like ‘heaven’ is the soul of this currently broken Adamic Universe (in red too).

The Singularity/Trinity Math works in 'Heaven' (blood witness realm) and NOT in this broken water witness 'earthly' realm . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[JBeukema]

People, I shut kalam down in his axioms a long time ago, and he didn't bother to respond. His argument has no merit. Stop wasting your time.

 

[Kalam]

People, I shut kalam down in his axioms a long time ago, and he didn't bother to respond.

Where?

 

[Kalam]

I seem to remember responding to a few poorly thought-out points of yours and having you let the argument die.

 

[JBeukema]

I showed that your initial axioms were fallacious and you never replied.

 

[JBeukema]

Here is an outline of the argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

The KCA works by supporting the (a) option of each premise and then using it in the following premise

There is no logical reason for supporting A at 2- let alone 3. Causation is impossible without time, which only exists if there is both space and matter- which both come into being with the Big Bang.

 

[JBeukema]

The problem with this argument, I think, is that it implies either that the universe created itself from nothing.

A cannot create A.

 

[JBeukema]

Terral, the moment you cite scripture in an attempt to discredit science, the whole world laughs at you.

 

[Kalam]

Here is an outline of the argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

The KCA works by supporting the (a) option of each premise and then using it in the following premise

There is no logical reason for supporting A at 2- let alone 3. Causation is impossible without time, which only exists if there is both space and matter- which both come into being with the Big Bang.

You are implying that the universe brought itself into existence. That is axiomatically impossible. You're also implying that God would be bound by the constraints of space and time. We can conclude that God is not material. Like our thoughts, it can be concluded that God only "exists" as some sort of abstract reality. Our thoughts exist independently of space and time, yet we're able to say with confidence that some precede other thoughts and certain events that occur in the physical universe. Some even lead to certain events that occur in the physical universe. Can the case not be the same with God?