The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[mattbballman]

Alright, my last thread sort of ran into a dead end so what I'm going to do, is take what I think to be a valid argument for the existence of God and take to as far as I can until someone refutes it.
AND WHEN SOMEONE(IF SOMEONE) REFUTES IT, I WILL BE HONEST AND ADMITT MY DEFEAT.

I just want to bring this point up first before I state the arguement.
-The minute you think I'm not answering you objections correctly or misunderstanding you I want you to tell me right away so we can stay on the right track. Thanks!

Ok . . . Here we go!

This is the traditional formulation . . .

Premise 1:Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2:The universe began to exist.
Premise 3:Therefore the universe has a cause.

My goal is not to prove the CHRISTIAN GOD per se, but some ONTOLOGICALLY TRANSCENDANT being that would be enough to disprove atheism.
After we prove that there is some transcendant causeless being (IF we prove that) then we'll move to arguments for the PERSONALITY of this cause.

 

[Ross]

Mattbballman,

First, let me start by saying that I believe that God is real. I hold this belief to be true for several lines of evidence, which we needn't go into now.

This being said, let's look at your proof.

>>Premise 1:Whatever begins to exist has a cause.<<
This is certainly true in our everyday experience, but does it have to be true for universes? I'm not sure. This is a question for cosmologists and physicists, not philosophers.

>>Premise 2:The universe began to exist.<<
Based on recent work by Hawkins, this may not be true in the sense that we'd like to use the phrase "began to exist".

>>Premise 3:Therefore the universe has a cause. <<
If Premises 1 and 2 are correct, this certainly follows. But a "cause for the universe" is not necessarily equivalent to a "Creator of the universe".

Thus, the most you can claim from your argument is that the universe had a cause. I do not find this a compelling proof for the reality of God.

Ross

 

[mattbballman]

Thanx for responding . . .

>>Premise 1:Whatever begins to exist has a cause.<<
This is certainly true in our everyday experience, but does it have to be true for universes? I'm not sure. This is a question for cosmologists and physicists, not philosophers.

The astrophysical and cosmological evidence indicates that the universe began to exist in a great explosion called the "Big Bang" 15 billion years ago. Physical space and time were created in that event, as well as all the matter and energy in the universe. Therefore, as the Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing. This is because if you go back in time, you reach a point, at which, the universe was shrunk down to nothing at all. Thus, what the Big Bang model requires is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing. A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing by nothing. But surely that doesn't make sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being. So from the Big Bang theory we can see that the universe had a beginning, and logically, nothing can begin without a beginner. So I think that premise still stands.

>>Premise 2:The universe began to exist.<<
Based on recent work by Hawkins, this may not be true in the sense that we'd like to use the phrase "began to exist".

You'll have to be more specific on which Hawkins work your talking about. I've looked at all of them and they aren't as convincing as the evidence for the Big Bang theory.

>>Premise 3:Therefore the universe has a cause. <<
If Premises 1 and 2 are correct, this certainly follows. But a "cause for the universe" is not necessarily equivalent to a "Creator of the universe".

I'm using the word cause here simply to mean something that produces something else, and in terms of which that other thing, called the effect, can be explained. Whether it's an efficient cause or material cause is simply left out of account. So I'm not specifying in the first premise what kind of cause it has to be, but simply that there must be a cause. Now I would also say that we do have something of an analogy with creation out of nothing in our own mental ability to create thoughts in our minds, thought–worlds, fantasies. Now this is an analogy, perhaps, with God's creating the universe. Now don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that we're all just dreams in the mind of God or something. But I think it does provide something of an analogy of the idea of creating out of nothing. And finally, I would point out that the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe posits the origin of the universe without a material cause. So even in the Big Bang theory you have no material cause of the origin of the universe. But I'm maintaining that you must at least have an efficient cause to bring it into being, even if there is no material cause.

Thus, the most you can claim from your argument is that the universe had a cause. I do not find this a compelling proof for the reality of God.

Ross

It deductively follows from a cause of space and time that the cause must be timeless and spaceless. Therefore it cannot be anything physical and material that transcends time and space. It must be changeless. And I would argue that it must be personal because otherwise you cannot explain how a temporal effect can originate from an impersonal, timeless cause.

From the very nature of the case, as the cause of space and time, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power which created the universe.

 

[Evangelion]

An observation.

An observation.

It is impossible to construct an axiomatic proof for the existence of God.

I tried it myself on a number of occasions while I was a uni student.

 

[o2bwise]

Just Wonderin

Just Wonderin

Hi Evangelion,

What do you mean by an axiomatic proof?

What would you mean by a proof that is not axiomatic?

Tony

 

[mattbballman]

Re: An observation.

Re: An observation.

It is impossible to construct an axiomatic proof for the existence of God.

I tried it myself on a number of occasions while I was a uni student.

In order to disagree with the argument you either have to show an invalidity in the logic, or you have to show that one of the premises is false and apart from that the conclusion follows because this is a DEDUCTIVE arguments. That means that if the premises are true then the conclusion nessicarily follows. And there was a transcendant causless cause.

 

[juliod]

First let me say I agree with Ross' analysis. Instead of accepting statements 1 and 2, I might say "There may be things which exist and were not caused" and "The universe may or may not have begun to exist."

But here's my real problem:

"Premise 3:Therefore the universe has a cause."

"some ONTOLOGICALLY TRANSCENDANT being"

If the "transcendant being" is the only possible cause then the argument is not substantial. If becomes roughly:

1) The universe had a cause.
2) God is the cause.
3) Therefore god created the universe.

Which is the same as the old "God created the universe because the universe was created by god."

If "god" is not the only possible cause then the argument doesn't advance us any distance.

Finally, it is funny to talk about a cause. I would say "Everything that begins to exist has multiple causes." I can't readily think of anything that does not have several contributing and interconnected causes. Few things, if any, in the real world result from a single, lone, unified cause.

Is this an argument for polytheism?

DanZ

 

[mattbballman]

juliod says, "Finally, it is funny to talk about a cause. I would say "Everything that begins to exist has multiple causes." I can't readily think of anything that does not have several contributing and interconnected causes. Few things, if any, in the real world result from a single, lone, unified cause."

You agree with, it seems, that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
And that the universe began to exist.

But you say, "Why only one cause?"

I would simply appeal to "Occam's Razor" which says that you do not postulate causes beyond necessity. One cause is enough. That suffices to explain the data.

 

[juliod]

You agree with, it seems, that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

No. I should have said that everything that is caused has multiple causes.

I consider it up in the air if everything has a cause.

I would simply appeal to "Occam's Razor" which says that you do not postulate causes beyond necessity. One cause is enough. That suffices to explain the data.

No no no. The usual situation is that multiple causes are required. You can't start a fire with only paper. You need fuel, oxygen, and an ignition source.

Heavier-than-air flight requires an atmosphere, gravity, a lifting surface, and forward movement. All those things are necessary causes of the movement of an airplane. Remove one, and "flight" is not caused.

Can you think of anything that doesn't have multiple causes? I can't.

DanZ

 

[mattbballman]

It seems as though, in the process of refuting me, you refuted your own position. For polytheism isn't the same as atheism.

Juliod says, "I consider it up in the air if everything has a cause." I think is so intuitively obvious that scarcely anybody could sincerely deny that it is false. David Hume himself agreed that this principle is true. In a letter to John Stewart dated February, 1754, Hume wrote, "But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Propostion as that anything might arise without cause: I only maintain’d, that our Certainty of the Falshood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration; but from another Source." Hume didn't think that you could prove the causal principle, but he certainly believed in it. In fact, he thought that the denial of that principle was simply absurd. Similarly, as is well known, Kant held the principle "Every event has a cause" to be a synthetic a priori principle; that is, it's an informative proposition characterized by both universality and necessity. Only Kant’s implausible and perhaps incoherent restriction of the categories to phenomena alone prevented him from holding that this principle applied to reality. So, as I say, it seems to me that this first premise is intuitively obvious, and even detractors of theistic arguments such as Hume and Kant themselves admit it's true.

I still think, from the very nature of the case as being the cause of THE UNIVERSE, there could only be ONE cause.
Since the cause has to be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.
From these attributes, I would assess that the polytheistic hypothesis is untennable. For there can't be more than one unlimited existence as such. More than the Most is not possible. Such a Cause us pure Act or Actuality, an Act that is unlimited and unique. Only actuality as conjoined with potency is limited, such as is found in contigent beings. To differ, one being would have to lack some characteristic found in the other.

But any being that lacked some characteristic of existence wouldn't be an unlimited, perfect existence.

In other words, two infinite beings can't differ in their potentiality, since they have no potentiality; they're pure actuality. And they can't differ in their actuality, since actualality as such doesn't differ from actuality as such.

Hence, they must be identical. There can be only ONE unlimited Cause of all limited existence.
Therefore I've shown the polytheistic theory to be impossible in light of the attribtes the cause has to possess in being the first-cause of space, time, and matter in being the creator of the universe.

Juliod says, "The usual situation is that multiple causes are required. You can't start a fire with only paper. You need fuel, oxygen, and an ignition source."

Yes, the MATERIAL cause would have to probably be fuel, oxygen, and an ignition source, but "Occam's Razor" would apply to the EFFICIENT cause, in that a PERSONAL cause was THERE to START fire. And using "Occam's Razor" we would only need one EFFICIENT cause, thus eliminating polytheism.

On a final note even if polytheism did become the reigning worldview, it would be enough to point out the falsity of atheism.

 

[Jaltus]

Actually, this is more of the cosmological argument, not the Kalam CA.

Try reading William Lane Craig's formulation since it is by far the most sophisticated and well-defended version to date.

 

[mattbballman]

Actually, this is more of the cosmological argument, not the Kalam CA.

Try reading William Lane Craig's formulation since it is by far the most sophisticated and well-defended version to date.

I've read Craig's book " the kalam cosmological argument" and his precise premises were:

1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2: The universe began to exist
3: Therefore, the universe has a cause

This is the Kalam Cosmological Arguement in which I'm defending.

 

[Jaltus]

Hmm, I thought he had a much more nuanced approach. Maybe I need to reread my apologetics books, hehe.

 

[Zarathustra]

The only difference between the First Cause argument and Kaleem's Cosmological argument as asserted by Craig, is that Craig simply asserts that God is outside the realm of universal law, which prohibits him from being subject to the first cause theory. Basically Craig is just making up solutions to solve the obvious problem of the First Cause argument.

 

[mattbballman]

Explain what you by "outside the universal law"

 

[Zarathustra]

Everything in the universe is subject to certain natural laws. The problem with the First Cause argument is that it applies to God as well. It is only logical to ask who created God, but the Kalam argument starts by saying that everything in the universe except God is subject to these laws and therefore God can not be held to the same logic. This of course is nothing more than a theistic cop out.

 

[mattbballman]

Everything in the universe is subject to certain natural laws. The problem with the First Cause argument is that it applies to God as well. It is only logical to ask who created God, but the Kalam argument starts by saying that everything in the universe except God is subject to these laws and therefore God can not be held to the same logic. This of course is nothing more than a theistic cop out.

I disagree with:
1.The first-cause arguement makes God subject to certian natural laws.
2.The fact that you don't understand what the kalam argument is saying about God and his relationship to the universe.

Explaination of disagreements.
1. First, the First Cause Argument. I don't see how your conclusion follows that God would be subject to certain natural laws.

It seems you assume that this argument states that "EVERYTHING needs a cause." If this is were true it would follow that one should never stop seeking a cause, even for God. But the First-Cause Arguement doesn't state that EVERYTHING needs a cause, but that every FINITE, CONTINGENT BEING has a cause."

In this way there is no contradiction between the First Cause, which is not contingent, and the principle of causality, which holds that all finite beings need a cause

One arrives at an infinite and necessary being, there is no need to seek a further cause,. A necessary being explains (grounds) it's own existence. It exists because it must exist. It cannot not exist. Only what CAN not exist (namely, contigent beings) needs an explaination. To ask of a necessary being why it exists is like asking why necessity must be necessary, or why cirles must be round.

2. Zarathustra thinks it is a "theistic cop out" to everything in the universe except God is subject to these laws and therefore God can not be held to the same logic.

I would just say that this is a misunderstanding, because God isn't IN the uninverse as Zarathustra alleged. He transcends the universe.

I would also say that you misread the 1st premise although it is pretty close to the original meaning I would say let's stick to what it actually says. I'm not saying everything IN the universe has cause (although I tend to agree with that). What my premise stated was that whatever BEGAN TO EXIST has a cause. The insight that lies at the root of Premise 1 is that being cannot come from nonbeing, something cannot come from nothing.

God, since he never began to exist, wouldn't require a cause, for he never came into being. THIS IS NOT SPECIAL PLEADING or a "theistic coppout", since this is exactly what the atheist has always claimed about the UNIVERSE: that it is eternal and uncaused.

The problem is with the evidence there is with premise 2: The unverse began to exist that can be supported with evidence from Big bang cosmology and Thermodynamics, and also philosophical evidences for the non-existence of an actual infinite, and the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite.

-I think, off the subject, I've seen nothing wrong with the First Cause Arguement.
-And there's nothing wrong with stating God never had a beginning from the very nature of being the cause of the universe(which had a biginnning) and God(who doesn't have a beginning because He never began to exist.

 

[Zarathustra]

I disagree with:
1.The first-cause arguement makes God subject to certian natural laws.
2.The fact that you don't understand what the kalam argument is saying about God and his relationship to the universe.

::snore::snore::snore:: - oh are you talking? Sorry.

Explaination of disagreements.
1. First, the First Cause Argument. I don't see how your conclusion follows that God would be subject to certain natural laws.

Why don't you see it? We are talking about a god that you Christians claim exists within this universe. Why wouldn't he be subject to those laws as every other thing within the universe is subject? If he exists outside this universe then he's irrelevant to anything within this universe.

It seems you assume that this argument states that "EVERYTHING needs a cause." If this is were true it would follow that one should never stop seeking a cause, even for God. But the First-Cause Arguement doesn't state that EVERYTHING needs a cause, but that every FINITE, CONTINGENT BEING has a cause."

In this way there is no contradiction between the First Cause, which is not contingent, and the principle of causality, which holds that all finite beings need a cause

Yes I'm familiar with the cop out. You claim everything needs a cause except God. It's nice when you have a theory where you can just make up the rules as you go along.

One arrives at an infinite and necessary being, there is no need to seek a further cause,.

Why not?

A necessary being explains (grounds) it's own existence. It exists because it must exist. It cannot not exist. Only what CAN not exist (namely, contigent beings) needs an explaination. To ask of a necessary being why it exists is like asking why necessity must be necessary, or why cirles must be round.

Wow, fantastic doublespeak! Have you been taking lessons from Maelstrom? Nothing you just said makes one bit of sense.

2. Zarathustra thinks it is a "theistic cop out" to everything in the universe except God is subject to these laws and therefore God can not be held to the same logic.

I would just say that this is a misunderstanding, because God isn't IN the uninverse as Zarathustra alleged. He transcends the universe.

Oh, how clever of him. Then he is irrelevent to anything in our universe. BTW, do you have any evidence of this trancendent god? Nevermind. I already know the answer.

I would also say that you misread the 1st premise although it is pretty close to the original meaning I would say let's stick to what it actually says. I'm not saying everything IN the universe has cause (although I tend to agree with that). What my premise stated was that whatever BEGAN TO EXIST has a cause.


Yes and you start by begging the question that God did not begin to exist yet you show no evidence of such a thing.

The insight that lies at the root of Premise 1 is that being cannot come from nonbeing, something cannot come from nothing.

Prove it.

God, since he never began to exist, wouldn't require a cause, for he never came into being.

You are simply defining God as you choose to define him. How do you know he never began to exist?

THIS IS NOT SPECIAL PLEADING or a "theistic coppout", since this is exactly what the atheist has always claimed about the UNIVERSE: that it is eternal and uncaused.

It's not what any atheist has ever claimed about God. See the problem with your logic yet?

-And there's nothing wrong with stating God never had a beginning from the very nature of being the cause of the universe(which had a biginnning) and God(who doesn't have a beginning because He never began to exist.

BUZZZ! Wrong Junior. There is everything wrong with creating a god in your own mind who fits your definition solely so you can bypass legitmate objections to your argument.

Before you go any further, what you need to do is prove that a God exists who has always existed. This is the sole thing you need to concentrate upon because unless you can prove this, then everything else you say has no basis.

 

[Evangelion]

Not quite.

Not quite.

O2 wrote:

What do you mean by an axiomatic proof?

An axiom is a self-evident truth. Many Christians fall into the trap of assuming that an argument for the existence of God can be constructed by grabbing a handful of principles which appear to be axiomatic, and liking them with the words "IF..." and "THEN..."

This is an amusing exercise in self-delusion, and I will admit that it can help to pass a long weekend, but as a theological argument it fails to advance the Christian cause.

What would you mean by a proof that is not axiomatic?

Doctrinal interpretations are a fine example. Think of the various "totally clear" passages which Trinitarians use to "prove conclusively" that Jesus is God. Trinitarians believe that these passages speak for themselves - that they present us with irrefutable evidence for the alleged deity of Christ.

In short - Trinitarians view these passages as axiomatic proofs.

But are they really...?

I think you know the answer...


Mattbballman wrote:

In order to disagree with the argument you either have to show an invalidity in the logic

There's certainly an inconsistency in the logic of the argument, that's for sure.

You jump from the concept of "necessary causation" to "necessarily uncaused being" with absolutely no justification for either one.

or you have to show that one of the premises is false

No, all I have to do is show that one of the premises is unproved.

And as it turns out, no less than two of them are.

and apart from that the conclusion follows because this is a DEDUCTIVE arguments.

A deductive argument that is predicated on a priori assumptions.

Hmmm... call me "Captain Incredulous", but I don't find it particularly convincing.

That means that if the premises are true

The moment you confess that the question of "IF..." is problematic, you effectively disembowel your own argument.

Nice work there.

then the conclusion nessicarily follows.

How long do you expect to wait for your "THEN..." to arrive? I'm guessing it will happen just as soon as you've eliminated the "IF..."

And there was a transcendant causless cause.

Nothing like a bit of rhetoric to unclog the credulity cells, eh!


So now that all of the screaming is over, what we find is...

...your philosophical "proof for the existence of God" turns out to be great on paper, but unworkable in practice. This is nothing new. The First Cause argument (no matter which form you employ) only finds merit within the confines of a pre-established theological paradigm. It's totally useless anywhere else.

But don't be discouraged. After all, if Anselm of Canterbury couldn't do it, how can a mere layman hope to succeed?

 

[Ross]

Matt,

Just a general question. Why are you so intent in trying to prove the existence of God? There are so many things to discuss.

If we accept that God exists: What is the nature of this God (i.e., is God personal, etc.)? Does God act in the world? If God does act in the world, how? That is, how does non-material interact with material? In what sense is God omnipotent and omniscient?

Maybe we can move on.

Ross