Why the Kalam cosmological argument fails.

Post Reply New Topic

It proves that cause and effect can occur at the same time. Since this is the case the Kalam is justified in stating that this can occur. Most Singularity models also concur the same.

Ok, so the first act of God started and, thus, time was started. But what about what triggered God's first act? It just sounds logically wrong thinking about it.

It makes one feel more sane by just believing that time has always been there with God himself.

I can think of only two concepts that give reason for the cause of the universe. One is a personal and eternal cause (God); and the other is an impersonal cause that says "nothing" somehow brought about energy and matter and caused the universe into existence.

But personally I think that it takes a giant leap of faith to believe that "nothing," which in and of itself has neither existence nor nature and therefore has no quality from within to create something, can even come close to creating the entire universe.

But since the universe does have a cause, as the kalam argument shows, and since "nothing" has no quality or characteristics within itself to cause a thing to be, I believe that the more suitable explanation for the first cause of the universe is a personal cause (God).

I believe that God is by nature existence, that is to say God is a necessary being. God cannot cease to exist. If God decided one day to cease existing, He could not, because His very nature is existence.

From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-existent
self-existent
adj
(Philosophy) Philosophy existing independently of any other being or cause
self-existence n

From: http://www.yourdictionary.com/self-existence
self-existent definition
self·-existent (-eg zis′tənt)
adjective
existing of or by itself without external cause or agency

^^^^

Well said.

@Mcalavera

The KCA is compatible with the both views; that God is inside of time, or outside of time. Craig has defended both views in his writing on the subject.

Also Mcalavera there is no such thing as a first moment in time. For it to be time, a moment must proceed it. Therefor when time began it could not be the first moment in time. This is well established in the discussion on the Standard Model.

Actions require time. This undermines the cosmological argument as it ends up entailing that God didn't engage in a creative act so much as the origin of the universe is in some way contingent upon God. The problem being that it just pushes back the situation without really explaining anything. God cannot be less arbitrary than the universe, unless we presuppose that an argument for the necessity of God has already succeeded.

There's no evidence to say that God is immortal, or even singular. Since our universe exists completely within God there is no seeing out. And since we have no way to compare our sense of the passage of time with God's experience of time, we have no way to know if a trillion years inside the universe equals a few months for God. We can suppose, however, that "forever" roughly equals God's lifespan.

Also, there is no way to know if there are multiple God's living outside our God - all with their own universes within. Perhaps we can assume those universes are as similar to ours as your face is similar to mine. And that "forever" is roughly the same - as your lifespan is roughly close to several decades, like mine.

Still, none of this matters. Because of our position relative to God and his neighbors - completely enclosed within one Supreme Being - there is no escaping the universe, and there is nothing before or after God.

Trying to see what came before the beginning of the universe is like your intestinal bacteria contemplating what came before your conception. Answer: nothing of any significance.

Perhaps the ending of God is another matter. Perhaps, like our bacteria, we can last a while after God dies (assuming that "made in his image" means he share some of OUR attributes, and a lifespan is one of them). Since we have no way to know how long our kind of cell or bacteria lasts in God Days, or how long those are relative to our own lives, God may have died eons ago, or still be a healthy young child.

I like to think that the most perceptive bacteria in my colon will have some sense ofmydeath and know that their days are numbered. Will we be able to sense the same about God?

Are we the slow poison crippling and eventually ending God? Or are we the circulation, breath, or thought of God? What responsibility would that give us?

One can always believe that time (the ultimate time) has always existed thus ... eliminating such logical problems that theists may have with God creating time. So there's a good point in what you said.

Maybe God (if he does exist) didn't actually create the universe from nothing ... he simply triggered the first change in it. That would make sense from a theistic point of view.

And I could never imagine how any "something" could trigger the first change ... thus my logical/philosophical need for an intelligent God.

Right, well, I think that issues about the beginnings of things just have massively unclear intuitions about them. I mean, Kant considered this an antimony, and a similar sentiment was expressed by psychologist Steven Pinker, as no matter what way we look at it, we have something clearly quite absurd going on.

Nonsense. What is by nature existence? Why the universe cannot exist without external cause any more than god?



You are twisting definitions again. 'Nothing cause the universe' means the universe has no cause. Not something called nothing that cause the universe.

Your post reminds me of a joke:
Nothing is better than my girlfriend
A toothbrush is better than nothing
Therefore a toothbrush is better than my grilfriend

@91

Your simultaneous cause fails because those are just descriptions of how different states of the universe are related (every object, the Earth, etc are just states of the universe). Saying the universe (of god) has a cause already presupposes some external state in P1). The whole argument just begs the question.

^^^^

Can you please elaborate on why you think the argument begs the question?

Also I am interested to know. I would also like you to elaborate on your previous comment so I can get a better grasp on what you are saying. Thanks.

In the most asinine, unscientific thing I think I have ever heard, Atkins, in his debate with Craig, said that universe was nothing. Nothing. That if God did exist, which he strongly doubted, all he had to do was split Nothingness into its component parts.

What?

Maybe I was having a bad day that day and couldn't concentrate on obvious contradictory reasoning, but it would seem to me that components parts of nothing is nothing, not the matter on which I am typing this, nor the matter on which others will read this, nor the matter of me and of you to begin with.

Hmm...

While this is provocatively put - who ARE these people that we care what they say - it is not as totally insane as it sounds.

You think zero sum - energy turned into equal parts [though we are told they were not equal matter and antimatter, which if they meet go back to energy. MAY be what he is trying for, in which case it is just tricksy rgument but not totally stupid.

But of course for all I know he is totally stupid. I really have very little respect or tolerance for the people who make a point of show trial debates.

Lol, anyone read what I said on page 1? Our experience is of a code, the universe might as well be made of 0's and 1's, its a dimensionality we're familiar with but that doesn't mean a heck of a lot. Trying to look backward or forward in history for answers is too 'inside the box' to work.

I don't understand your first example. The wood floating on water is already already a description of the state of the wood. Are you saying that the state of the wood causes the wood to float.



My understanding is that even if the ball sits on the pillow eternally, we knew that if in some alternative universe where the ball is NOT sitting on the pillow, there would be no dent in the pillow. So we conclude that the ball is a sufficient and part of necessary condition for the dent, which is by definition your event/event causation.

My objection is that you cannot simply postulate a world where the universe does not exist (anymore than a world where god doesn't exist). With no alternative world, it is pointless to talk about necessary condition for the universe. So I don't think you can justify the claim that everything has an event/event cause.

@01001011

Your first statement

I don't understand your first example. The wood floating on water is already a description of the state of the wood. Are you saying that the state of the wood causes the wood to float.

Response

Yes, the state of the wood and the state of the water is what causes the wood to float. It does not require a temporal cause for this to happen.

Your second statement

My understanding is that even if the ball sits on the pillow eternally, we knew that if in some alternative universe where the ball is NOT sitting on the pillow, there would be no dent in the pillow. So we conclude that the ball is a sufficient and part of necessary condition for the dent, which is by definition your event/event causation.

Response

I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but it seems to be more or less correct.

Your third statement

My objection is that you cannot simply postulate a world where the universe does not exist (anymore than a world where god doesn't exist). With no alternative world, it is pointless to talk about necessary condition for the universe. So I don't think you can justify the claim that everything has an event/event cause.

Response

Now I see where you are going with this. The ball sitting on a pillow is necessary for the impression it causes. If the universe itself to be excused from it's own need for a causal explanation then it would need to be necessarily existing itself. I do not think you will find many contemporary cosmologists who are prepared to state that the Universe is necessarily existing. Some cosmologists have argued for oscillating or inflationary multiverse models form of the universe's existence*, but modern cosmologists don't really attempt to squeeze the universe under the necessary existence definition.

* Oscillating Models were popular in the 60's and 70's. These models argued that the universe oscillates in and out from eternity without ever achieving a final state of equilibrium. These models firstly do not escape a finite past, since each cycle has less entropy. Secondly in order to fit with our own universe's low entropy condition an entropy decrease would be necessary during the contracting phase. This postulated decrease violates the second law.

The inflationary multiverse also does not avoid the question of a finite past. It has been shown by contemporary physicists that any universe which is majority inflationary must be finite in the past. This issue has come up in a previous thread. Some people questioned the Vilenkin findings. Vilenkin himself even wrote a dialogue with a bloger called 'Arizona Atheist' on the matter. James Sinclair (an expert on the KCA) has written a detailed and total response to this criticism (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8629)

In General Statement

I hope this helps answer some of you issues with the KCA 01001011.

^^^^

I am not sure what you are arguing for. If you reject these cosmological models (which I assume to be the case), then my argument still holds -- it is as reasonable to assume that the universe to be un-caused as assuming god is un-caused (indeed, you have not shown why anything need a cause, neither did WLC - he just appealed to intuition). Otherwise, you just accept the universe is caused by something other than god.