The 'Kalam' Cosmological Argument

[dshl]

This is supposed to be the knockdown argument with religious apologists like Dr William Craig.

For years I felt that this argument was quite weighty. Recently, though, I'm starting to feel it makes more grand claims than it should. Look at the first premise:

'Everything that begins to exist has a cause.'

Dr WLC will pose ridiculous scenarios like you wouldn't expect a horse to just appear in your living room so why would you expect the universe to just appear ex nihilo?

Might seem obvious when I say it but took a long while for me to fully form this objection. Please tell me your thoughts and if you agree with me:

There are in fact three types of new (please exchange 'new' for a better word):

The first type are new formations of molecules, ie tree into a chair, caterpillar into a butterfly.

The second type are new formations of non-material (abstract concepts like new ideas, formulas reformed in the mental world).

The third type is the creation of new matter meaning brand new atoms and particles coming into existence from nothing.

It seems to me that the cosmological argument is making claims about the third type, but appealing to our intuitions sourced in the first and second.

So my objection is that we don't in fact have an incredible abundance of evidence that everything that begins to exist has a cause, as the claim that the universe has a cause is an appeal to the third type of 'new' of which we have no previous example of.

Am I right to say that there are in fact no examples of the third type that we know of to base that claim on? Am I right to say that there are no examples of matter being created - new atoms if you like, or am I wrong?

Your thoughts kindly, thanks. If I don't reply I will still be reading all thanks.

 

[Santino]

All the original argument does is push back the thing that needs to be explained. Instead of an un-caused universe, you have an un-caused entity that has the capability of creating the universe. 'Ah', but they will say, 'that entity, being God, had no need of being caused by anything else.' But that's just starting from the thing you want to prove, viz. the existence of God.

 

[PTK]

.

 

[PTK]

This is supposed to be the knockdown argument with religious apologists like Dr William Craig.

For years I felt that this argument was quite weighty. Recently, though, I'm starting to feel it makes more grand claims than it should. Look at the first premise:

'Everything that begins to exist has a cause.'

Dr WLC will pose ridiculous scenarios like you wouldn't expect a horse to just appear in your living room so why would you expect the universe to just appear ex nihilo?

Might seem obvious when I say it but took a long while for me to fully form this objection. Please tell me your thoughts and if you agree with me:

There are in fact three types of new (please exchange 'new' for a better word):

The first type are new formations of molecules, ie tree into a chair, caterpillar into a butterfly.

The second type are new formations of non-material (abstract concepts like new ideas, formulas reformed in the mental world).

The third type is the creation of new matter meaning brand new atoms and particles coming into existence from nothing.

It seems to me that the cosmological argument is making claims about the third type, but appealing to our intuitions sourced in the first and second.

So my objection is that we don't in fact have an incredible abundance of evidence that everything that begins to exist has a cause, as the claim that the universe has a cause is an appeal to the third type of 'new' of which we have no previous example of.

Am I right to say that there are in fact no examples of the third type that we know of to base that claim on? Am I right to say that there are no examples of matter being created - new atoms if you like, or am I wrong?

Your thoughts kindly, thanks. If I don't reply I will still be reading all thanks.

The argument falls down if the cosmos has always existed.

We can only know about the observable cosmos. Big Bang cosmology refers only to the observable cosmos (what we can see now, and what we will see in the future when the light from more distant regions reaches us). There could be vastly distant regions that we will never be able to observe in which there are different conditions. The Big Bang could in fact be a "local" event.

Atoms did not come from nowhere, according to the Big Bang model. Before there were atoms there were particles, and before there were particles there was energy out of a portion of which the particles (sort of) "condensed".

Even as a “local” event, the Big Bang did not involve the coming into being of the observable cosmos from nothing. It was the origin of the structure that we now observe, but before it there was energy.

 

[bcuster]

This is supposed to be the knockdown argument with religious apologists like Dr William Craig.

For years I felt that this argument was quite weighty. Recently, though, I'm starting to feel it makes more grand claims than it should. Look at the first premise:

'Everything that begins to exist has a cause.'

Dr WLC will pose ridiculous scenarios like you wouldn't expect a horse to just appear in your living room so why would you expect the universe to just appear ex nihilo?

Might seem obvious when I say it but took a long while for me to fully form this objection. Please tell me your thoughts and if you agree with me:

There are in fact three types of new (please exchange 'new' for a better word):

The first type are new formations of molecules, ie tree into a chair, caterpillar into a butterfly.

The second type are new formations of non-material (abstract concepts like new ideas, formulas reformed in the mental world).

The third type is the creation of new matter meaning brand new atoms and particles coming into existence from nothing.

It seems to me that the cosmological argument is making claims about the third type, but appealing to our intuitions sourced in the first and second.

So my objection is that we don't in fact have an incredible abundance of evidence that everything that begins to exist has a cause, as the claim that the universe has a cause is an appeal to the third type of 'new' of which we have no previous example of.

Am I right to say that there are in fact no examples of the third type that we know of to base that claim on? Am I right to say that there are no examples of matter being created - new atoms if you like, or am I wrong?

Your thoughts kindly, thanks. If I don't reply I will still be reading all thanks.

You are right. This is the core of St Thomas Aquinas arguments. Incidentally, his feast day on the Catholic calendar was yesterday

 

[bcuster]

The argument falls down if the cosmos has always existed.

We can only know about the observable cosmos. Big Bang cosmology refers only to the observable cosmos (what we can see now, and what we will see in the future when the light from more distant regions reaches us). There could be vastly distant regions that we will never be able to observe in which there are different conditions. The Big Bang could in fact be a "local" event.

Atoms did not come from nowhere, according to the Big Bang model. Before there were atoms there were particles, and before there were particles there was energy out of a portion of which the particles (sort of) "condensed".

Even as a “local” event, the Big Bang did not involve the coming into being of the observable cosmos from nothing. It was the origin of the structure that we now observe, but before it there was energy.

Where did the energy come from?

 

[PTK]

Where did the energy come from?

It was already there. The cosmos is eternal and uncreated.

 

[Santino]

We don't understand time sufficiently to make confident assertions about the finiteness or infiniteness of time in either direction.

 

[PTK]

We don't understand time sufficiently to make confident assertions about the finiteness or infiniteness of time in either direction.

If time had a beginning, then it would still be true to say that the cosmos has always existed.

 

[bcuster]

It was already there. The cosmos is eternal and uncreated.

Logically, that doesn't seem possible. But that’s the going answer for atheists. So that’s where this discussion tends to dead end

 

[dshl]

The argument falls down if the cosmos has always existed.

We can only know about the observable cosmos. Big Bang cosmology refers only to the observable cosmos (what we can see now, and what we will see in the future when the light from more distant regions reaches us). There could be vastly distant regions that we will never be able to observe in which there are different conditions. The Big Bang could in fact be a "local" event.

Atoms did not come from nowhere, according to the Big Bang model. Before there were atoms there were particles, and before there were particles there was energy out of a portion of which the particles (sort of) "condensed".

Even as a “local” event, the Big Bang did not involve the coming into being of the observable cosmos from nothing. It was the origin of the structure that we now observe, but before it there was energy.

Thanks for pointing out that atomic particles derive from energy. I intended the same question regardless, ie. Where are these examples of matter coming into existance from a cause? or as you point out Where are these examples of energy coming into existance from a cause? And if there are no such examples then what is the first premise of the cosmological argument actually based on or pointing to?

As for your second point regarding energy being eternal - my first thought is that this seems like just an assumption (don't know what evidence/arguments there are behind that). But bringing our attention to this possibility is very important and this is the reason why:

There are only two possible options:

1: If you are correct and energy is eternal then the first premise of cosmological argument points to zero examples.

2: Lets say you are wrong and energy did originally come into existence. In this case the first premise of cosmological argument would be pointing at itself making it circular.

 

[JimW]

In the worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned. Heaven sought order. But the phoenix can only fly when its feathers are grown.

The four worlds formed again and yet again, as endless aeons wheeled and passed. Time and the pure essences of Heaven, the moisture of the Earth, the powers of the sun and the moon all worked upon a certain rock, old as creation. And it became magically fertile.

That first egg was named ‘Thought’. Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, ‘With our thoughts, we make the world’. Elemental forces caused the egg to hatch. From it then came a stone monkey.

The nature of Monkey was irrepressible!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

All the original argument does is push back the thing that needs to be explained. Instead of an un-caused universe, you have an un-caused entity that has the capability of creating the universe. 'Ah', but they will say, 'that entity, being God, had no need of being caused by anything else.' But that's just starting from the thing you want to prove, viz. the existence of God.

It's turtles all the way down...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is time fundamental? That's an open question in physics. Another way to pose the question is to ask: Is it possible to fully describe the whole of physics without reference to time?

If time isn't fundamental, that is of course very disconcerting to us as beings whose experience exists in time. But that we are fooled in fundamental ways by our perception is not such a surprise. And if time isn't fundamental then many problems are no longer problems. They're just badly formed questions.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Logically, that doesn't seem possible. But that’s the going answer for atheists. So that’s where this discussion tends to dead end

Hmmm. Not sure you're representing most 'atheists' fairly there.

A common question posed is the one that asks: Why is there something rather than nothing? But then you can equally ask: Why would there be nothing rather than something?

If you have no way to answer the second question, you also cannot properly address the first question.

That may feel unsatisfactory, but it is where we are at, in a rather unsatisfactory place wrt certain questions. Absence of knowledge should not be seen as an opportunity to fill in the gap with an arbitrary answer.

 

[story]

It's turtles all the way down...

I'm afraid that's no longer true. It's now wankers all the way down.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm afraid that's no longer true. It's now wankers all the way down.

We are godspunk. And god was godspunk. And so was god. As was god. Wankers all the way down.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't remember ever consciously really believing in god in the sense that I'd thought things through and this was the answer. The first thought about this subject I can remember from the young proto-atheist me concerned this particular argument. 'Who made god?' was my first atheist thought. The idea of god didn't seem to solve anything. Still doesn't.

 

[story]

I'm much less atheist than I used to be.

I can't explain what I feel and think. And I'm happy with the idea that it's nothing more than a story I tell myself, while also indulging in confirmation bias when I see read or experience something that tallies with the story.

I'm able to simultaneously accept the complete absence of God or god-like stuff. But my own lived experience (what goes on inside my head and heart) seems to be at odds with atheism.

Doing a BSc. and reading more science actually made me less atheist.

This thread kinda chimes with some of my own internal ponderings.

 

[Knotted]

Before we get into the weeds regarding this argument or any other argument about the existence of God, I think any proof about the existence of God leaves God with no particular discernable features.

If some being created the universe then what we have there is the Platonic concept of a demiurge which may or may not be equivalent to God. There have been Christian theologies where the creator is evil or stupid (see Marcion or Valentinus). So even within Christianity this isn't a proof. The creator may not even have anything resembling an intelligence. It may in effect be some natural process we don't know about. As the argument is a priori it effectively says nothing objectively but is rather a rhetorical trick to hint at a gap in which to insert a God with all the bells and whistles that you want that God to have.

There is a further issue with the God = the demiurge equation. And that's that there is no obvious solution to the problem of suffering. Why did a good God create a world in which there was suffering?

 

[PTK]

Logically, that doesn't seem possible. But that’s the going answer for atheists. So that’s where this discussion tends to dead end

The claim that the cosmos has always existed is more plausible then the claim that there exists an eternal being that created the cosmos. For we have evidence that there is a cosmos, but there is no evidence for an eternal being that created it. If we are to opt for the assertion that requires the fewest assumptions, then we have to adopt the hypothesis that the cosmos has always existed and was not created.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is a further issue with the God = the demiurge equation. And that's that there is no obvious solution to the problem of suffering. Why did a good God create a world in which there was suffering?

I've never been convinced by this as a problem tbh. Let's say that there is a creator and that this creator set things up so that Darwinian evolution could happen on Earth. Can any version of evolution happen that does not involve suffering? What other mechanism could this god have set up that would have avoided suffering but produced beings with conscious experience?

 

[PTK]

I am a second generation atheist.
About 25 years ago, when I had been studying cosmology, the thought "why is there something rather than nothing" occurred to me. The question was not an idle thought, and I felt excited by it.
The answer is that there is no "why". There is something rather than nothing.

 

[Santino]

I've never been convinced by this as a problem tbh. Let's say that there is a creator and that this creator set things up so that Darwinian evolution could happen on Earth. Can any version of evolution happen that does not involve suffering? What other mechanism could this god have set up that would have avoided suffering but produced beings with conscious experience?

If I was an infinitely powerful entity I would simply have created a universe in which innumerable beings were born and acted with free will and yet no suffering happened. If it's conceivable then it could happen and that's the universe I would have chosen.

 

[Crispy]

2: Lets say you are wrong and energy did originally come into existence. In this case the first premise of cosmological argument would be pointing at itself making it circular.

As LBJ says, this argument only makes sense from the position of an entitiy experiencing time. We see the past affecting the present and assume the chain of causality goes back forever, thus requiring some originating event. But relativity allows for time to have start and end points. Time ends at a black hole singularity, and it appears to have begun with the big bang. Asking questions about Before the big bang makes as much sense as asking questions about After reaching a singularity.

Seeing as we are entitites bound by spacetime, it is highly likely that we will never know what the right questions even are. This gap in our ability to understand can be filled by a God if you like, but such a thing would neccesarily be so removed from our experience that it doesn't matter what it is. The same can be said for the something/nothing question. Impossible to answer from inside the something.

You just have to be happy with "we don't know and never will" which is a bit sad really.

 

[PTK]

I've never been convinced by this as a problem tbh. Let's say that there is a creator and that this creator set things up so that Darwinian evolution could happen on Earth. Can any version of evolution happen that does not involve suffering? What other mechanism could this god have set up that would have avoided suffering but produced beings with conscious experience?

So, this creator is powerful enough to start the cosmic process, light the blue touch paper, so to speak, but cannot guide the direction of the rocket?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, this creator is powerful enough to start the cosmic process, light the blue touch paper, so to speak, but cannot guide the direction of the rocket?

Perhaps. I don't know.

In the case of suffering, I can't conceive of any version of evolution that does not involve suffering. It's built in. What other way is there other than evolution to produce life forms that have experiences such that they might, among other things, suffer?

It seems a pointless speculation where we can't even conceive of a possible alternative answer, not a meaningful question really.

 

[PTK]

Perhaps. I don't know.

In the case of suffering, I can't conceive of any version of evolution that does not involve suffering. It's built in. What other way is there other than evolution to produce life forms that have experiences such that they might, among other things, suffer?

It seems a pointless speculation where we can't even conceive of a possible alternative answer, not a meaningful question really.

I suppose the "problem of evil" became less intractable once the Christian chruches accepted the truth of evolution. However, if their god cannot simply magic up people without all the dirty process of evolution, then their god is not omnipotent.

 

[bcuster]

The claim that the cosmos has always existed is more plausible then the claim that there exists an eternal being that created the cosmos. For we have evidence that there is a cosmos, but there is no evidence for an eternal being that created it. If we are to opt for the assertion that requires the fewest assumptions, then we have to adopt the hypothesis that the cosmos has always existed and was not created.

Except that it is illogical. Why didn't the "cosmos" just remain as it was? What Force acted upon it, or acted upon the nothing, to create the dynamic cosmos we now see?

 

[Knotted]

I've never been convinced by this as a problem tbh. Let's say that there is a creator and that this creator set things up so that Darwinian evolution could happen on Earth. Can any version of evolution happen that does not involve suffering? What other mechanism could this god have set up that would have avoided suffering but produced beings with conscious experience?

Well that's a deist God without all the bells and whistles that William Craig wants. The problem with these proofs/arguments that the terms particularly the term "God" is not defined beforehand. It's defined afterwards.