Kalem cosmological argument

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: sparky31

Same goes for how god created the universe and what world did he exist in. Adleast the big bang can justify it with measurable science, even if the conclusions may be wrong. It has sound foundations based on our current knowledge.

Saying god did it without having to justify how is so last century.

maybe i should have added that i don,t believe god did it either,no offence to anyone but i,m not a believer.

a reply to: sparky31
I too don't believe big bang is correct nor do I believe in God. But all we can do is go according to the data and big bang is the best we got, without going into parallel universe membrane type crap debates.

a reply to: rajas
Please share your view. The only way a thread like this will progress is if people like yourself share your views. Can't rely on others to do it . 3 pages and no progress so far other than semantics and misinterpretations of concepts.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: sparky31
I too don't believe big bang is correct nor do I believe in God. But all we can do is go according to the data and big bang is the best we got, without going into parallel universe membrane type crap debates.

oh i wasn,t going to go there,i think scientists one day will come up with the evidence that what they once believed was way off like they have with pluto and other stuff they,ve recently discovered.

how everything came to be will be way beyond our existence and for probably quite a few generations after.

a reply to: Thetan

When I say argue for or against the argument, i'm saying express your disagreement or agreement with the argument and then state WHY. In other words, if you agree, support the premises and conclusion, also; argue with those contrary to your view if you'd like. If you disagree, demonstrate how the argument is invalid or unsound.

These are two syllogisms to support premise number two.


An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.
AND

A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.
Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.

Premise one seems to be a given unless someone actually wants to contend it.

The conclusion of the argument necessarily follows from the premises.

a reply to: rossacus

Most people in here cant handle the truth.. If i told them how things are, their reality would break... But im all ears to listen to your stories.

a reply to: Thetan

Why isn't that an argument. I agree that the universe could have no beginning, therefore no cause, and be infinitely eternal, with black holes and quarks popping in and out of existence.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Thetan


An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

First premise is unknown, therefore your conclusion is unsound.

a reply to: GetHyped

Listen guys, you wont get anywhere

Unification of general relativity with quantum theory is the only method we have that could allow us to look before the big bang and discover its cause.

String theory is working on this and it theorises that our universe was caused by the collision of two "parent universes", existing like bubbles in a multiversal bubble bath. It is also theorised that fluctuations in the multiversal vacuum may have "pinched off" our universe into the 4 dimensional bubble we know today through the explosive expansion of the big bang. In these models, big bangs happen all the time.

So, according to the best of our current scientific and mathematical knowledge, our universe was caused by a collision of two universes or multiversal vacuum fluctuation.

There are of course other theories out there, but string theory is looking so far like the most likely one to provide the answer, biblical mythology notwithstanding.

a reply to: GetHyped

Nonsense.First of all, a conclusion is unsound only if it isn't true, not if its unknown whether it's true or not. Secondly, the first premise is known. Out of nothing, comes nothing. There is no reason to believe that out of nothing comes something; you cannot give me an example of such an occurrence.

a reply to: spygeek

Just wondering,
Does it sound plausible to you? or is it perimeter of ignorance? Could be aliens, could be gods, could be time travelers... Do you think we will even find the truth?

a reply to: windword

What isn't an argument? The syllogism to refute your refutation of premise two lies two posts above yours.

The more i understand, the less i know..

The Universe is you

a reply to: spygeek

So do you agree or disagree with the argument? If you do disagree, that wasn't a refutation.

a reply to: Thetan

Without a fallacy of special pleading it is impossible to claim that the cause that caused the Universe does not itself need a cause.

There is no reason to think that if we extrapolate out our intuition about causation to the entire Universe we can arrive at any conclusions.

Of course the question is also raised of in what way the Universe began to exist, if it indeed did begin to exist (there are still plenty of eternal models of the Universe). That question is of whether or not we're talking about beginning to exist ex materia or ex nihilo. The only type of causation we've ever observed is ex materia, from some previously existing energy or stuff.

Here, I'll let TBS do this, instead of just rehashing his arguments:



Skip to around 1:25 to get past the intro.

The fact of the matter is Kalam has huge issues, the biggest being why we would apply simple causal intuition to something as confusing and complex as an entire Universe.

a reply to: Thetan

Or cause and effect is just an illusion. Think ofit like this, every cause is an effect and every effect is a cause. So they are the same. Its a paradox if you look at it as a linear function of time. Considering we experience time linearly, we only comprehend it that way. Adding a religious component is uneeded an just feeds the paradox and is just used to justify getting out of the loop.

originally posted by: rajas
a reply to: spygeek

Just wondering,
Does it sound plausible to you? or is it perimeter of ignorance? Could be aliens, could be gods, could be time travelers... Do you think we will even find the truth?

It certainly does sound plausible to me. The fact that it is supported mathematically, unlike a hypothesis involving time travelling alien gods, elevates it above other theories. I do believe we will find the answer, if not through string theory then a variation of it. Our knowledge and understanding of the universe and its workings is, like the universe, expanding every day.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: spygeek

So do you agree or disagree with the argument? If you do disagree, that wasn't a refutation.

I'm afraid I do not agree with The Kalām cosmological argument. Here's your refutation:

Aside from the fact that additional arguments are required to reach the intended conclusion that God created the universe, (eg. that the cause must be personal, that this means a god, and that this god must be the one in the bible), it is also fundamentally flawed from the first premise.

Let's break it down:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
In quantum mechanics, there are examples of things happening without cause, (e.g. radioactive decay or an atom losing a photon when in an excited energy level). Proponents of the KCA have tried to explain this by saying quantum events are still caused, only in an undetermined fashion, William Lane Craig called this "probabilistic causality". By asserting that a cause can be accidental, spontaneous or undetermined, the original case for predetermined creation is destroyed by its own advocates.
Even if this first premise was sound, why could that cause not be natural?

2. The universe began to exist.
This assumes that the universe had a beginning. We cannot say for certain that pre-big bang the universe did not exist in a stable eternal state. We only know what happened in the universe 10^−43 seconds after inflation started, and there are other possibilities besides nonexistence, (e.g. the multiverse could exist before our universe started, there could have been a "big crunch" prior to the expansion etc.)

3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Even if we accept that the universe has a cause, we simply don't know enough about this cause to grant it omniscient intelligence and awareness. The cause may well have been without will or intelligence. It is even less appropriate to assume the cause is specifically the Abrhamic God.

KCA is using circular reasoning. The statement "whatever begins to exist" is presumed not to allow for anything except God. This puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove His existence in the first place. It is in fact a case of special pleading, as the first premise can effectively be expressed as: Everything that exists except God has a cause.

Finally, as the argument provides no positive evidence for a god, never mind "The God", and it merely asserts that a god must have been the cause, it is essentially an argument from ignorance.

I haven't even started on the arguments compositional errors and failure of to define its main subject matter (the universe).

All in all it is a deeply flawed, biased argument of circular reasoning used to justify a non-sequitir conclusion.

a reply to: Thetan

I'm going to make another thread after this one which extends the argument to the question of what caused the effect of the universe. Establishing the validity of this argument is the prelude to the auxiliary conclusion.

You mean to say once you're satisfied that this thread concludes there was a cause you will finish the Kalam Cosmological Argument that the cause was god?

It won't be a revelation.

Also, it's spelled Kalam.

Interjecting my view on this,

"It is because it is. Until it is not."

No one currently alive was there at the start, there is no recorded history that flat out spells how it happened. Why twist yourself into a knot trying to figure out if it was the Big Bang, the Big Burp, the Archalsiesher's sneeze, or a lonely being saying let there be light.

We are here, we are now, we need to do the best with what we got. Be it Math and Books supporting our separate belief systems or one or more deities that gave it to us. It truly does not matter. Live to be the Best you can be, encourage others to do the same. There you go peace if you will have it.

CoBaZ