The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a Good Argument

[Matt C]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a good argument (that is, it's sound, simple, rationally compelling, and the premises are more plausible than their respective logical compliments). No critic from the literature I've studied has raised fatal objections that are more plausible than the premises of the argument.

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

If you participate in this thread and wish to object, then please follow this guideline for the clarity of discussion: name the premise you think is false, and provide a reasoned objection to it. Explain why your objection is actually more plausible than the premise in question; don't post empty speculation. Please also be concise.

[Von Smith]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a good argument (that is, it's sound, simple, rationally compelling, and the premises are more plausible than their respective logical compliments). No critic from the literature I've studied has raised fatal objections that are more plausible than the premises of the argument.

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

If you participate in this thread and wish to object, then please follow this guideline for the clarity of discussion: name the premise you think is false, and provide a reasoned objection to it. Explain why your objection is actually more plausible than the premise in question; don't post empty speculation. Please also be concise.

I'd like to know how something is caused to begin to exist. All the "causes" I am familiar with involve interactions among already existing things. The closest thing I know of to something "beginning to exist" in the relevant sense of popping out of nothing (as opposed to emerging from a pre-existing substrate of matter-energy) are quantum phenomena like virtual particles, which do not appear to have causes.

[Matt C]

I'd like to know how something is caused to begin to exist.

Me too, especially from nothing (which implies there is no cause around). It's easy to think of things that are caused to begin to exist when there is some thing there already. But when nothing is involved, I'm at a loss.

The closest thing I know of to something "beginning to exist" in the relevant sense of popping out of nothing (as opposed to emerging from a pre-existing substrate of matter-energy) are quantum phenomena like virtual particles, which do not appear to have causes.

Is this your objection? Are you aware that this issue was debated about a decade ago, and the chief atheist detractor of the KCA abandoned this objection? Virtual particles do not begin to exist out of nothingness. And they do have a cause (subatomic fluctuations), it's just that the cause is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a good argument (that is, it's sound, simple, rationally compelling, and the premises are more plausible than their respective logical compliments). No critic from the literature I've studied has raised fatal objections that are more plausible than the premises of the argument.

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

If you participate in this thread and wish to object, then please follow this guideline for the clarity of discussion: name the premise you think is false, and provide a reasoned objection to it. Explain why your objection is actually more plausible than the premise in question; don't post empty speculation. Please also be concise.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by objection. I do question point 2 simply because it is not defined within the context presented. The universe is typically defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. Since this includes the physical laws and constraints then is it not reasonable to say that the universe is without beginning and without end?

[Matt C]

Eeset,

That's a good definition of the universe: the sum total of space and time (or spacetime).

Since this includes the physical laws and constraints then is it not reasonable to say that the universe is without beginning and without end?

Could you flesh this out a bit more? I don't see how it follows from the stipulated definition of the universe that the universe is everlasting. What kind of inference are you relying on here?

[spitndirt]

It is plausible, and even probable, that a universal base substance (energy?) exists without beginning. However, this would likely have no bearing upon the main point of the Kalam argument since our reality is composed of manufactured matter that is a few steps removed from the ever-existing base substance it would ultimately consists of. For example, a proton when broken down to it's smallest component may well consist solely of a universal base substance yet the base substance in and of itself is not a proton until such a time when it is formed to be one. So, there is a line to be drawn between the original state of an eternally existing base substance and the point of arranging this substance to form the particles that make up our present universe. In relation to our universe it would also be right to say that though it can be reduced to an ever-existing base substance this substance in it's original unformed state cannot be considered "a universe". The Kalam argument, then, would be concerned with the forming of a base substance but not with the substance itself. Get it....sort of?

peace

[Von Smith]

Me too, especially from nothing (which implies there is no cause around). It's easy to think of things that are caused to begin to exist when there is some thing there already. But when nothing is involved, I'm at a loss.

I do not share youre assessment of which scenario is more intuitive. As I said, all causes with which I am familiar interact with pre-existing conditions to produce their effects. So I find the idea of a cause with no environment to interact with producing something is at least as problematic a concept as an uncaused event.

Is this your objection? Are you aware that this issue was debated about a decade ago, and the chief atheist detractor of the KCA abandoned this objection? Virtual particles do not begin to exist out of nothingness. And they do have a cause (subatomic fluctuations), it's just that the cause is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

I said that they were the closest thing I could think of to something beginning to exist out of nothingness. If you are saying that they are not such a thing, than they are not a case on point. And if that is the case, then I am happy to table the discussion of whether they have causes.

You are still left without a basis for claiming that something that begins ex nihilo (as oppposed to emerging from a pre-existing substrate), must have a cause, or even can have one.

[Matt C]

Von Smith,

An example of something beginning to exist would be a human being. And we know that human beings are caused to exist by pre-existing material. On the other hand, we cannot think of anything that begins to exist without a cause, from nothing. So I'm not sure why you nevertheless believe your view is more intuitive. It seems there's a lot of pre-theoretical support for the claim that things which begin to exist have a cause. Your assertion that this is "without basis" is itself without basis.

[bowmore]

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

(1) existence ex nihilo is unobserved, we may even question if it is possible. And if it is possible, whether it needs a cause.
(2) this is wrong if 'begins to exist' is to be understood as existence ex nihilo. Our best current understanding is that the universe was formed from a singularity, not ex nihilo.
(3) the conclusion of the argument is too unspecific as to what that cause may be, there's nothing in the argument to lead us to think it must be a god.

[Matt C]

Bowmore

First, I agree that existence ex nihilo is nowhere observed and that we may (indeed should) question its possibility. This is because I agree with the principle ex nihil nihil fit (from nothing nothing comes). I don't see how this is an objection to premise (1). (Note: Creatio ex nihilo is not the same as existence ex nihilo. The former quantifies over something which creates from nothing else, the latter quantifies over nothing at all.)

Second, the sense in which the universe began to exist is roughly as follows: the universe exists at time t and at some time t* such that t* is prior to t it was not the case that the universe existed. This does not imply existence ex nihilo.

Third, by definition the cause would have to transcend nature, since anything natural would be part of the extension of the term 'universe'. Since the universe also includes all of space and time, the cause could be neither spatial nor temporal. Also, whatever the non-natural cause was, it's much more likely than not that it was incredibly causally powerful (a powerless thing could not create anything like a universe). Transcendent to nature, timeless, spaceless, powerful: these attributes are near enough to something like God, in my estimation. Whether the cause is also personal, holy, Allah, Jesus, or the One, etc., I am fine with leaving aside for now, as this can be investigated with independent arguments (i.e. arguments from consciousness, arguments from reason, moral arguments, resurrection arguments, etc.).

[Matt C]

Spitndirt,

Interesting post. I take it the base substance would likely have the characteristics I mentioned above in my third response to bowmore. I trust you'd recognize the reasons why. Two additional characteristics would be omnipresence and universal immanence, if in virtue of its consistence all material objects have being (as in your proton example).

So the substance or energy would have to transcend nature in one sense and be immanent in nature in another, and would have to be timeless (eternal), spaceless (and therefore immaterial), all-encompassing, and extraordinarily powerful. If the Kalam gets us this far, I think it has done its job.

[bowmore]

Bowmore

First, I agree that existence ex nihilo is nowhere observed and that we may (indeed should) question its possibility. This is because I agree with the principle ex nihil nihil fit (from nothing nothing comes). I don't see how this an objection to premise (1).

I agree that it is not a refutation of premise (1) but the inverse of premise (1) is equally likely. We really don't know. I'd consider arguments based on such premises to be weak.

Second, the sense in which the universe began to exist is roughly as follows: the universe exists at time t and at some time t* such that t* is prior to t it was not the case that the universe existed. This does not imply existence ex nihilo.

If in the second premise 'begins to exist' does not imply existence ex nihilo, and in the first one it does, then I can only conclude that (3) is not a valid inference.

Secondly, time is understood to be a part of our universe, it is scientifically meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of our universe.
Also, if you'd insist that time exists beyond our universe (contrary to science) it would follow that the cause of our universe needn't be timeless.

Third, by definition the cause would have to transcend nature, since anything natural would be part of the extension of the term 'universe'. Since the universe also includes all of space and time, the cause could be neither spatial nor temporal. Also, whatever the non-natural cause was, it's much more likely than not that it was incredibly causally powerful (a powerless thing could not create anything like a universe). Transcendent to nature, timeless, spaceless, powerful: these attributes are near enough to something like God, in my estimation. Whether the cause is also personal, holy, Allah, Jesus, or the One, etc., I am fine with leaving aside for now, as this can be investigated with independent arguments (i.e. arguments from consciousness, arguments from reason, moral arguments, resurrection arguments, etc.).

So if our universe was caused by, say, a collision of other universes (with their own set of dimensions) you'd call that collision god?
In my opinion, that would not be a god.

[shunyadragon]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a good argument (that is, it's sound, simple, rationally compelling, and the premises are more plausible than their respective logical compliments). No critic from the literature I've studied has raised fatal objections that are more plausible than the premises of the argument.

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

If you participate in this thread and wish to object, then please follow this guideline for the clarity of discussion: name the premise you think is false, and provide a reasoned objection to it. Explain why your objection is actually more plausible than the premise in question; don't post empty speculation. Please also be concise.

Kalam is only valid if our physical existence, including the universe, began without a natural physical cause.

I will assume an Infinite Matrix (IM) that is infinite in time and space, with a set of laws and is self-caused. Universes begin, exist and end in the IM. This a perfectly adequate explanation based on the evidence we have at present. We have no objective evidence of a Divine Cause of existence creating something from nothing.

Biblically it is more correct that God created from a preexisting existence.

I believe a 'Source' some call God is the Creator, but the evidence we have and the possibly arguments from either position do not resolve the issue.

[Matt C]

Bowmore,

When you say:

the inverse of premise (1) is equally likely. We really don't know.

could you please explain what you mean by this? What do you take to be the "inverse" of (1) and why is it equally likely?

If in the second premise 'begins to exist' does not imply existence ex nihilo, and in the first one it does, then I can only conclude that (3) is not a valid inference.

Neither imply existence ex nihilo. The principle that out of nothing, nothing comes, is used in defense of premise (1), but the phrase 'begins to exist' by itself does not imply existence ex nihilo. So the argument is valid.

Secondly, time is understood to be a part of our universe, it is scientifically meaningless to speak of a time before the existence of our universe.
Also, if you'd insist that time exists beyond our universe (contrary to science) it would follow that the cause of our universe needn't be timeless.

Since I nowhere committed to the view that there was time 'prior' to the universe, and since the KCA itself also does not assume this, I'm not sure why you raised this issue.

So if our universe was caused by, say, a collision of other universes (with their own set of dimensions) you'd call that collision god?

No, I wouldn't. Do you think this is what happened?

[Matt C]

Shunya,

Since the universe by definition already includes everything phyiscal, its cause couldn't be physical.

Thanks for your input.