Kalam cosmological agument

[atheist buddy]

The argument goes like this:

Everything which begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
The cause is the God of classical theism



Here is another argument:

Everything which breaks has a cause
My toaster broke
Therefore the breaking of my toaster has a cause
The cause is the God of classical theism



How do the notions that the universe existing has a cause, and my toaster breaking has a cause, in any way logically lead to the concusion that this cause is an allpowerful sentient intelligent being who reads our minds and doesn't want us to masturbate?


Assume that the argument properly defines what "begins" means (which the argument doesn't), assume that everything which "begins" to exist indeed has a cause (although it hasn't been demonstrated), assume that the argument properly defined what the universe is (although the argument doesn't), assume that it began to exist (although it hasn't been demonstrated), and then, sure, you come to the conclusion that something caused the universe.

Much like something caused my toaster to break.

Why not assume something like a quantum fluctuation in the singularity, or a power surge from a circuit breaker burning out?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

A theologian would tell you that in the second argument, the cause is ex materia - from the material - similar to a change in form. In the first argument, the cause could not be ex materia, as it's the beginning of all that is material. (There's no material from whence anything could come.)

They might comparably say (for example, in response to the assertion that the universe could have been brought about by quantum fluctuation) that there must be an ultimate cause to avoid an infinite chain of causation into the past (a fluctuation in material is, by definition, ex materia) - this is a related argument. The two reasons usually given for this being bad are the consideration that actual infinites* are impossible, and that an infinite past causal chain implies (under A-theory) an infinite time has passed, but an infinite amount of time can't have passed, as an infinite amount of time is endless. This argument is generally used to justify the assertion that the 'physical Universe' did begin.
*Quantitative infinites, as distinct from qualitative infinites, e.g. the qualities of God.

What's meant by Universe here, and as required by Kalam, doesn't need to refer to universe in the normal sense, it might refer to something else in the contexts of a 'super-universe', a multiverse, a 'greater reality', etc. Universe is generally meant in the (original) sense of everything physical (physical being an important distinction to them, and the validity of the argument). This includes the example given of 'a quantum fluctuation', where it'd be considered the beginning of this universe, but it'd simply be considered a change in the Universe. A theologian could, for instance, assert that the fields which had fluctuated (the Universe) had begun to exist.

As to why such a first cause would be sentient and intelligent, the reason given by many a theologian is the assertion that agency is the only form of causation which is not brought about by prior circumstances (i.e. free will). It's the first cause, so there can be no prior circumstances.

Assuming (by Occam's razor) that the beginning of this universe is the beginning of the causal chain, i.e. that there isn't some super-universe, multiverse or "'larger' reality" (or that this universe is the Universe), the first cause is the cause of this universe. The theologian then states that such a being, having created a Universe, must be supremely powerful - and, presumably having intended it, must be supremely intelligent. As the first cause, it must be necessary, and that a being with these qualities is God*.
*It requires other arguments to establish omni-benevolence, which personality and whether or not it hates masturbation.

Kalam is the result of taking causation, A-theory and agency too seriously.
(Theologians likely wouldn't use the terms "the Universe" and "this universe" in the sense I have - even if they would refer to a super-universe (for instance) as the Universe.)

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

A theologian would tell you that in the second argument, the cause is ex materia - from the material - similar to a change in form. In the first argument, the cause could not be ex materia, as it's the beginning of all that is material. (There's no material from whence anything could come.)

How do you know there was no material the universe could come from?

They might comparably say (for example, in response to the assertion that the universe could have been brought about by quantum fluctuation) that there must be an ultimate cause to avoid an infinite chain of causation into the past (a fluctuation in material is, by definition, ex materia) - this is a related argument. The two reasons usually given for this being bad are the consideration that actual infinites* are impossible, and that an infinite past causal chain implies (under A-theory) an infinite time has passed, but an infinite amount of time can't have passed, as an infinite amount of time is endless. This argument is generally used to justify the assertion that the 'physical Universe' did begin.

Infinite regress is only problematic if we assume constant linear time. We know that time is warped by gravity and can indeed stop in the vicinity of a sufficiently large gravitational field such as a black hole.

*Quantitative infinites, as distinct from qualitative infinites, e.g. the qualities of God.

Qualitative infinite is a meaningless concept. Either something is infinite or it isn't. Either God will be too tired to do one more pushup after having done any given number of pushups, or he will be able to do one more. In the first case his pushup ability is not infinite, in the second it's infinite.

There is absolutely no way in which somebody can have the quality of being infinite without being able to perform an infinite number of things.

What's meant by Universe here, and as required by Kalam, doesn't need to refer to universe in the normal sense, it might refer to something else in the contexts of a 'super-universe', a multiverse, a 'greater reality', etc. Universe is generally meant in the (original) sense of everything physical (physical being an important distinction to them, and the validity of the argument). This includes the example given of 'a quantum fluctuation', where it'd be considered the beginning of this universe, but it'd simply be considered a change in the Universe. A theologian could, for instance, assert that the fields which had fluctuated (the Universe) had begun to exist.

Ok. Then if by universe we don't mean the observable universe, then please defend Kalam's second premise - that it began to exist. Please demonstrate that this universe/megaverse/multiverse beyond our ability to detect, has the attribute of having begun to exist. And once you do, please do invite me to your Nobel Prize acceptance ceremony. Until then, Kalam is NOT based on true premises.

As to why such a first cause would be sentient and intelligent, the reason given by many a theologian is the assertion that agency is the only form of causation which is not brought about by prior circumstances (i.e. free will). It's the first cause, so there can be no prior circumstances.

Agency is NOT a form of causation which is not brought about by prior circumstances. In every example we have, a sentient mind capable of causing something to happen WAS IN TURN CAUSED by something else, such as the material objects which caused the sentient entity to exist in the first place. Don't agree? Go ahead and try to make the decision to eat Cheerios tomorrow morning, without using the atoms that make up your brain.

Assuming (by Occam's razor) that the beginning of this universe is the beginning of the causal chain

If you were to assume the simplest explanation possible, why would you assume the existence of something outside the universe? Positing the existence of an entity outside of the universe complicates matters without adding any explanatory power, because any difficulty we have in accounting for the universe itself would exist with the entity that caused it as well, but be amplified by our inability to detect it in any way.

The theologian then states that such a being, having created a Universe, must be supremely powerful - and, presumably having intended it, must be supremely intelligent

That's nonesense. Every example of complexity we can point to, shows complexity arising from incremental increases from simpler beginings. Look at the formation of galaxies, evolution of life on earth, etc.

If an entity capable of causing a universe exists outside the universe, there is no justification for assuming it's any more complex than a random quantum fluctuation. If it IS complex, there is no more justification for assuming it's timeless and uncreated than there is to assume that the universe is timeless and uncreated.

As the first cause, it must be necessary, and that a being with these qualities is God*

ANY cause is necessary for the effect that it causes to come to pass. that is no more true for a God than it is for a quantum fluctuation.

Kalam is the result of taking causation, A-theory and agency too seriously.

A-theory is bunk. We know time fluctuates.

(Theologians likely wouldn't use the terms "the Universe" and "this universe" in the sense I have - even if they would refer to a super-universe (for instance) as the Universe.)

Ok, tell me how they have demonstrated that premise 2 is true, then, and that we know that THE universe (as opposed to our universe) began to exist. We don't even know if it... EXISTS, how can we possibly know that it began to exist?

A logical conclusion is only true if the premises have been demonstrated to be true. You'll be very hard pressed to demosntrate that "our" universe began to exist, but if by "universe" you mean "absolutely anything which exists irrespective of whether we can or ever will be able to perceive it", then demonstrating the eixstence of such a thing is already probelmatic. To demosntrate that such a thing BEGAN to exist is basically impossible. We cannot asusme a logical premise is true if it's actually unknowable whether it's true or not.

Not knowing if somehting is true or not is the OPPOSITE of knowing that it's true.

If we don't know if a premise is true or not, then the logical argument based on that premise fails.

You're welcome.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]
A theologian would tell you that in the second argument, the cause is ex materia - from the material - similar to a change in form. In the first argument, the cause could not be ex materia, as it's the beginning of all that is material. (There's no material from whence anything could come.)

How do you know there was no material the universe could come from?

I don't. If there were, the material from which the universe came could itself have had a beginning.

They might comparably say (for example, in response to the assertion that the universe could have been brought about by quantum fluctuation) that there must be an ultimate cause to avoid an infinite chain of causation into the past (a fluctuation in material is, by definition, ex materia) - this is a related argument. The two reasons usually given for this being bad are the consideration that actual infinites* are impossible, and that an infinite past causal chain implies (under A-theory) an infinite time has passed, but an infinite amount of time can't have passed, as an infinite amount of time is endless. This argument is generally used to justify the assertion that the 'physical Universe' did begin.

Infinite regress is only problematic if we assume constant linear time. We know that time is warped by gravity and can indeed stop in the vicinity of a sufficiently large gravitational field such as a black hole.

It doesn't matter whether or not time is constant and linear - unless time is passing at an infinite rate, an infinite amount of time won't elapse under A-theory.

I myself don't see any reason to think infinite regress is problematic at all, I don't subscribe to a-theory.

*Quantitative infinites, as distinct from qualitative infinites, e.g. the qualities of God.

Qualitative infinite is a meaningless concept. Either something is infinite or it isn't. Either God will be too tired to do one more pushup after having done any given number of pushups, or he will be able to do one more. In the first case his pushup ability is not infinite, in the second it's infinite.

Quantitative: How many push-ups were done
Qualitative: How good the push-ups were

I'm just telling you what a theologian would, imho 'possessing a qualitative infinite' sounds like a silly way of phrasing 'having a perfect quality' (or similar).

There is absolutely no way in which somebody can have the quality of being infinite without being able to perform an infinite number of things.

I don't see why that would be the case, I mean specific infinite properties anyway.

What's meant by Universe here, and as required by Kalam, doesn't need to refer to universe in the normal sense, it might refer to something else in the contexts of a 'super-universe', a multiverse, a 'greater reality', etc. Universe is generally meant in the (original) sense of everything physical (physical being an important distinction to them, and the validity of the argument). This includes the example given of 'a quantum fluctuation', where it'd be considered the beginning of this universe, but it'd simply be considered a change in the Universe. A theologian could, for instance, assert that the fields which had fluctuated (the Universe) had begun to exist.

Ok. Then if by universe we don't mean the observable universe, then please defend Kalam's second premise - that it began to exist. Please demonstrate that this universe/megaverse/multiverse beyond our ability to detect, has the attribute of having begun to exist. And once you do, please do invite me to your Nobel Prize acceptance ceremony. Until then, Kalam is NOT based on true premises.

This universe did begin to exist in some sense of the word, if you want to believe in some greater reality you are free to do so, until then there's no reason to think there's anything else. Occam's razor would suggest we disbelieve in greater realities, until such a time that we can detect them. Do you have evidence that something preceded this universe?

Is there reason to think something didn't precede the universe?
Yes, many suggest that time begun with the beginning of this universe.

As to why such a first cause would be sentient and intelligent, the reason given by many a theologian is the assertion that agency is the only form of causation which is not brought about by prior circumstances (i.e. free will). It's the first cause, so there can be no prior circumstances.

Agency is NOT a form of causation which is not brought about by prior circumstances. In every example we have, a sentient mind capable of causing something to happen WAS IN TURN CAUSED by something else, such as the material objects which caused the sentient entity to exist in the first place. Don't agree? Go ahead and try to make the decision to eat Cheerios tomorrow morning, without using the atoms that make up your brain.

A dualist would say their immaterial mind instructs their material body. They could claim their immaterial mind can act without prior cause. Further, it wouldn't necessarily be the same kind of causation when it comes to causes leading to an agent coming into existence, and that agent's causation. A dualist probably wouldn't claim that choices are instructed necessarily from prior circumstance, even if prior circumstance plays a role, but that there's some indeterministic choice.

Assuming (by Occam's razor) that the beginning of this universe is the beginning of the causal chain

If you were to assume the simplest explanation possible, why would you assume the existence of something outside the universe? Positing the existence of an entity outside of the universe complicates matters without adding any explanatory power, because any difficulty we have in accounting for the universe itself would exist with the entity that caused it as well, but be amplified by our inability to detect it in any way.

Earlier you said "how do you know there isn't material pre-existing the universe?". Don't the same questions apply?

I don't think theism is true, and I don't think Kalam is a good argument. I don't think it raises real problems, it relies too heavily on assumptions I don't share.

The theologian then states that such a being, having created a Universe, must be supremely powerful - and, presumably having intended it, must be supremely intelligent

That's nonesense. Every example of complexity we can point to, shows complexity arising from incremental increases from simpler beginings. Look at the formation of galaxies, evolution of life on earth, etc.

If an entity capable of causing a universe exists outside the universe, there is no justification for assuming it's any more complex than a random quantum fluctuation. If it IS complex, there is no more justification for assuming it's timeless and uncreated than there is to assume that the universe is timeless and uncreated.

An agent that can create a universe would certainly be supremely powerful to us.
I imagine a theist would make some other argument like fine tuning or the justification for their specific religion to explain why they don't consider the universe an accident.

As the first cause, it must be necessary, and that a being with these qualities is God*

ANY cause is necessary for the effect that it causes to come to pass. that is no more true for a God than it is for a quantum fluctuation.

This isn't true in many senses, but this isn't even what's being said. The idea is that a first cause itself can't be dependent on anything else, it exists necessarily - otherwise it wouldn't be the first. (I'm not saying that a first cause is necessary for subsequent things, though as a first cause it obviously would be.)

In many circumstances I can see a contingent cause as being a meaningful concept. Say I dropped a glass on the floor, and I caused the glass to break. Someone else could have dropped the glass on the floor, breaking the glass. I am not necessary for the glass breaking, as someone else could have caused it.

Kalam is the result of taking causation, A-theory and agency too seriously.

A-theory is bunk. We know time fluctuates.

Time fluctuating isn't itself a problem for A-theory.

(Theologians likely wouldn't use the terms "the Universe" and "this universe" in the sense I have - even if they would refer to a super-universe (for instance) as the Universe.)

Ok, tell me how they have demonstrated that premise 2 is true, then, and that we know that THE universe (as opposed to our universe) began to exist. We don't even know if it... EXISTS, how can we possibly know that it began to exist?

Lots of theologians would use the infinite causal chain argument.

Regardless, we know this universe began to exist, we don't know that anything else exists. It's reasonable to conclude that this universe is the Universe, and something we probably should do via Occam's razor. It's not just unreasonable to believe we live in the matrix, but it's reasonable to believe that we don't, it's unnecessary complexity. The phrasing is awkward because of the way I explained it, but I wanted it to be clear that even if there were a quantum fluctuation that caused this universe, it doesn't immediately mean kalam is false.

A logical conclusion is only true if the premises have been demonstrated to be true.

To a reasonable standard of evidence, generally to the point that it's more likely than not.

You'll be very hard pressed to demonstrate that "our" universe began to exist, but if by "universe" you mean "absolutely anything which exists irrespective of whether we can or ever will be able to perceive it", then demonstrating the existence of such a thing is already problematic. To demonstrate that such a thing BEGAN to exist is basically impossible. We cannot assume a logical premise is true if it's actually unknowable whether it's true or not.

You don't need to demonstrate anything other than the universe exists. If only the universe exists, then we already know it began. If the universe is all there is, or if it's not reasonable to believe there's anything else, it's reasonable to believe everything physical began.

The idea of an infinite causal regress is meant to suggest that there must be a beginning anyway. If you accept the premises, of course. (I don't.)

To emphasise the problem with the reasoning of this counter argument - I don't need to know whether or not there are dragons on Pluto to know whether or not all dragons on Pluto could be simultaneously capable and incapable of breathing fire. If the two contradict, it's not the case.

Not knowing if something is true or not is the OPPOSITE of knowing that it's true.

If we don't know if a premise is true or not, then the logical argument based on that premise fails.

Knowledge and reasonable belief have a significant overlap, and the difference is just shades of grey. Premises in arguments don't fail because they aren't known, they fail because they aren't believed - it doesn't matter whether or not the belief is knowledge. The truth of the conclusion might depend on the truth of the premises, but this normally isn't related to whether or not people are aware or know of the premises' truth.

We do know that the universe begun to exist in some sense, i.e. that the universe has a finite history. Is there a reason to believe there's anything else?

Several cosmologists believe time has a finite history, there are many cosmological theories that support this. If time has a finite history, time begun (this depends on your definition of beginning), and if time has a finite history then the Universe begun (beginning is a temporal concept).

You're welcome.

Thanks?

[Talishi]

Everything which begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
The cause is the God of classical theism

It hasn't been demonstrated that the universe began to exist. If time is the result of activity, and activity began with inflation, then time was not applicable "before" inflation, which moots the word "began". In that case, the universe is both eternal with respect to time (it existed as long as time itself has existed) yet we can point to a beginning.

[For_The_Kingdom]

How do you know there was no material the universe could come from?

Then the question would become "where did the material that the universe came from...come from?".

So the question of origins would be pushed back one step further..thus, not explaining or helping anything.

Infinite regress is only problematic if we assume constant linear time. We know that time is warped by gravity and can indeed stop in the vicinity of a sufficiently large gravitational field such as a black hole.

One does not need to even consider any aspect of time per se for the argument against infinite regress to work.

One can just consider "events" in time which are just as discrete as any moment in time. So the argument can be "there could not have been an infinite amount of events in time." and the argument is just as deadly.

Qualitative infinite is a meaningless concept. Either something is infinite or it isn't. Either God will be too tired to do one more pushup after having done any given number of pushups, or he will be able to do one more. In the first case his pushup ability is not infinite, in the second it's infinite.

When we say "God is infinite" it ain't in a quantitative sense...it is quality..meaning his standards/qualities are maxed out to the highest degree possibile...it has nothing to do with numbers or quantitives.

There is absolutely no way in which somebody can have the quality of being infinite without being able to perform an infinite number of things.

God can do anything that is logically possible, so if it is possible for an infinite number of things to be performed, then God can do it.

Ok. Then if by universe we don't mean the observable universe, then please defend Kalam's second premise - that it began to exist. Please demonstrate that this universe/megaverse/multiverse beyond our ability to detect, has the attribute of having begun to exist. And once you do, please do invite me to your Nobel Prize acceptance ceremony. Until then, Kalam is NOT based on true premises.

First off, you demonstrate that this universe/megaverse/multiverse has the attribute of being eternal/necessary in its existence.

Of course, we can demonstrate precisely why no natural reality can exist for past eternity. There is the problem of infinite regression that you have, and it will follow you wherever you go on naturalism.

Agency is NOT a form of causation which is not brought about by prior circumstances. In every example we have, a sentient mind capable of causing something to happen WAS IN TURN CAUSED by something else, such as the material objects which caused the sentient entity to exist in the first place. Don't agree? Go ahead and try to make the decision to eat Cheerios tomorrow morning, without using the atoms that make up your brain.

Then the question is, again...how did living beings become sentient in the first place, and on naturalism, I don't see how this can be explain.

If you were to assume the simplest explanation possible, why would you assume the existence of something outside the universe?

Because postulating an external cause has more explanatory power than postuatling an internal cause. If I asked you to explain the origin of your computer, but your explanation has to be internal to the computer and nothing external to it...would you be able to adequating explain the origin of your computer? No, you wouldn't. You would recognize the necessity of an external cause.

Positing the existence of an entity outside of the universe complicates matters without adding any explanatory power, because any difficulty we have in accounting for the universe itself would exist with the entity that caused it as well, but be amplified by our inability to detect it in any way.

It will only complicate matters if one assumes that everything that exists has an external cause. But that isn't the argument and one shouldn't assume this.

If you accept the fact that there had to be a necessary cause, then it doesn't complicate matters at all. If we accept the fact that we just can't go back any further than this necessary cause, and that everything begins with this necessary cause, then things are simplified.

That's nonesense. Every example of complexity we can point to, shows complexity arising from incremental increases from simpler beginings. Look at the formation of galaxies, evolution of life on earth, etc.

Yeah, neither of those "complex things" you mentioned are sentient, are they? On a beach, you can get many "complex" piles of sand, but you will never get to the point where you will have sand castles, would you? No, stuff like that requires intelligent minds.

And I like how you glossed over the "origin" of life and jumped right to the evolution of life....and I was just pointing out on another thread that this kind of jump is very convenient...just bypass abiogenesis and jump right to good ole' evolution.

Never fails LOL.

If an entity capable of causing a universe exists outside the universe, there is no justification for assuming it's any more complex than a random quantum fluctuation.

Quantum fluctuations aren't giving rise to sentient life though, are they?

If it IS complex, there is no more justification for assuming it's timeless and uncreated than there is to assume that the universe is timeless and uncreated.

How can a universe that is in a constant state of change ever be considered timeless? After all, change requires time, or does it not?

ANY cause is necessary for the effect that it causes to come to pass. that is no more true for a God than it is for a quantum fluctuation.

Quantum fluctations won't work because that doesn't explain the origin of life, the universe, consciousness, and language...nor does it undermine the problem of infinite regression that even a god (should one exist) would be subject to.

A timeless cause is needed and to appeal to anything within the universe regarding the origin of the universe is circular reasoning.

[Talishi]

Quantum fluctations won't work because that doesn't explain the origin of life, the universe, consciousness, and language...nor does it undermine the problem of infinite regression that even a god (should one exist) would be subject to.

Quantum fluctuations don't have to explain the origin of the universe. All they have to do is falsify the claim that every effect must have a cause, which they do very nicely. Then the whole First Cause/First Mover edifice comes crashing down.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Quantum fluctuations don't have to explain the origin of the universe. All they have to do is falsify the claim that every effect must have a cause, which they do very nicely.

Then the whole First Cause/First Mover edifice comes crashing down.

So basically, what it boils down to is the fact that naturalists would rather believe that the universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing than believe in the "G" word.

Any explanation, no matter how absurd, is STILL better than the God hypothesis. Is that what it has come to?

But anyway, no, it doesn't come crashing down..because you still have two philosophical problems.

1. Even if something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing, it would have to do so in time...but time cannot be eternal in its past, and likewise, there cannot be an infinite amount of events in time.

And the event of our universe originating would be just one event on an infinitely long chain of events....in time...and this cannot happen in reality.

2. If something can pop in to being out of nothing, then why doesn't any and everything pop in to being uncaused out of nothing? Why only particles, or universes? Why not money, cars, or horses??

The state of nothingness doesn't have any pre-deterministic features or qualities that will allow just particles...or JUST universe to pop out of nothing..how can the state of nothingness be so arbitrary and picky...but then again, how can the state of nothingness do anything?

Either way, there is no viable answers to either of those points, certainly not the first one. A first cause, with free will is necessary for physical reality to exist.

[Talishi]

2. If something can pop in to being out of nothing, then why doesn't any and everything pop in to being uncaused out of nothing? Why only particles, or universes? Why not money, cars, or horses??

I don't know why money, cars, or horses don't pop out of nothing, but electron-positron pairs do, and that is sufficient to lay the First Cause argument to bed.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I don't know why money, cars, or horses don't pop out of nothing, but electron-positron pairs do

So nothingness is selective...only electron-positrons can pop out of nothingness, huh? Nothing else, huh. So the state of non-being is so arbitrary, that only certain thing(s) can appear, and nothing else? LOL.

Not to mention it popped into existence out of pre-existing space...where did the space come from?

, and that is sufficient to lay the First Cause argument to bed.

No it isn't, for the very reason of the infinite regression problem...you know, the problem that I mentioned, one that you completely and conveniently ignored...when that is the main reason why your postulation CANNOT logically be said to have happened.