The Main Issues w/ the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[NoToReligion]

Hello! This is my first post on the forums, and I hope it'll be a good one. For those of you who do not know what the Kalam Cosmological Argument (or the KCA for short) is, here's the argument in its entirety used by theists.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God

Believe it or not, this argument is used quite often. That is surprising because of the following reasons:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (certainly true for things IN the universe, however you cannot say what is within something happens the same as something out of that thing, as it is a composition fallacy. For example, take a school of fish. From the perspective of somebody only able to see the school of fish, all fish within the school have a mother. So, the person concludes that the school of fish must have a mother. If you want to say this is an unfair analogy because you can replace the word "mother" with "cause," that is choosing one specific area of the argument and disregarding the other. The point of the argument isn't to give a cause of the school of fish, it is showing that looking to the parts of a group of objects doesn't mean that the group of objects came about the same way as the objects within the group. So while a watch may have a watchmaker, the universe does not have to have a universe maker.)
2. The universe began to exist (true, but look to last part)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God (what? That makes no sense. Jumping from "the universe has a cause" to "that cause is god" is absurd, and certainly does not prove any one religion. In fact, that can be used to prove any religion. Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, you name it. And using this argument, my grandma can be God, if she lived long enough.)

This was kind of put together quickly, so it might have some issues and might not make as much sense as it should, but I think it's good enough to actually convey my message.

 

[shunyadragon]

Number 2 fails. There is evidence that our universe either began or is cyclic from a singularity, but than again our universe may be one of many as part of a multiverse which may be one of many multiverses in a physical existence that has no known beginning.

There is no evidence to support nor determine that our physical existence had a beginning. There is no known way to determine that our physical existence is eternal or temporal, nor infinite or finite.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Jumping from "the universe has a cause" to "that cause is god" is absurd

Agreed. I've argued the same : https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/why-the-cosmological-argument-fails.205567/#post-5505185

Welcome to the forum.

 

[osgart]

An uncaused cause that is the very first cause would have to be eternal, and perpetual. Otherwise you are dealing with an infinite regress of causes.

From the highest energy state to the lowest energy state what would make energy cyclical to be self perpetuating. Possibly nothing.

If nothing then a beginning to our existence is likely.

I have not seen anything eternal, or perpetual about our universe.

Too little is known about quantum mechanics to know if at that level existence is perpetual.

However without space and time you can't have particles.

Total existential nothingness is impossible.

Still no God to be found regardless.

To establish God you must prove omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent power exists.

Conclusion: an eternal, perpetual state of existence must exist somewhere.

Consciousness could be fundamental but that is another argument.

 

[danieldemol]

Hello! This is my first post on the forums, and I hope it'll be a good one. For those of you who do not know what the Kalam Cosmological Argument (or the KCA for short) is, here's the argument in its entirety used by theists.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God

Believe it or not, this argument is used quite often. That is surprising because of the following reasons:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (certainly true for things IN the universe, however you cannot say what is within something happens the same as something out of that thing, as it is a composition fallacy. For example, take a school of fish. From the perspective of somebody only able to see the school of fish, all fish within the school have a mother. So, the person concludes that the school of fish must have a mother. If you want to say this is an unfair analogy because you can replace the word "mother" with "cause," that is choosing one specific area of the argument and disregarding the other. The point of the argument isn't to give a cause of the school of fish, it is showing that looking to the parts of a group of objects doesn't mean that the group of objects came about the same way as the objects within the group. So while a watch may have a watchmaker, the universe does not have to have a universe maker.)
2. The universe began to exist (true, but look to last part)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God (what? That makes no sense. Jumping from "the universe has a cause" to "that cause is god" is absurd, and certainly does not prove any one religion. In fact, that can be used to prove any religion. Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, you name it. And using this argument, my grandma can be God, if she lived long enough.)

This was kind of put together quickly, so it might have some issues and might not make as much sense as it should, but I think it's good enough to actually convey my message.

Welcome to the forums. Everything we observe appears to have a cause. Therefore it seems to me to be a reasonable extrapolation that everything must have a cause, at least until we can prove that a thing doesn’t have a cause.

To me the reason the KCA falls short is because a) there may be an infinite number of regressive causes.
b) just because we do not know what the cause is does not make the cause God
c) it is special pleading to say that everything has a cause then exclude God from that.

By the way I believe in God, but I think i’m just hardwired to believe in God, I don’t know of any independent proof of God

 

[exchemist]

Welcome to the forums. Everything we observe appears to have a cause. Therefore it seems to me to be a reasonable extrapolation that everything must have a cause, at least until we can prove that a thing doesn’t have a cause.

To me the reason the KCA falls short is because a) there may be an infinite number of regressive causes.
b) just because we do not know what the cause is does not make the cause God
c) it is special pleading to say that everything has a cause then exclude God from that.

By the way I believe in God, but I think i’m just hardwired to believe in God, I don’t know of any independent proof of God

Hmm. According to quantum physics there are plenty of uncaused, spontaneous and random, processes in nature, it seems. Determinism is about a century out of date.

 

[ChristineM]

Hello! This is my first post on the forums, and I hope it'll be a good one. For those of you who do not know what the Kalam Cosmological Argument (or the KCA for short) is, here's the argument in its entirety used by theists.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God

Believe it or not, this argument is used quite often. That is surprising because of the following reasons:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (certainly true for things IN the universe, however you cannot say what is within something happens the same as something out of that thing, as it is a composition fallacy. For example, take a school of fish. From the perspective of somebody only able to see the school of fish, all fish within the school have a mother. So, the person concludes that the school of fish must have a mother. If you want to say this is an unfair analogy because you can replace the word "mother" with "cause," that is choosing one specific area of the argument and disregarding the other. The point of the argument isn't to give a cause of the school of fish, it is showing that looking to the parts of a group of objects doesn't mean that the group of objects came about the same way as the objects within the group. So while a watch may have a watchmaker, the universe does not have to have a universe maker.)
2. The universe began to exist (true, but look to last part)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God (what? That makes no sense. Jumping from "the universe has a cause" to "that cause is god" is absurd, and certainly does not prove any one religion. In fact, that can be used to prove any religion. Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, you name it. And using this argument, my grandma can be God, if she lived long enough.)

This was kind of put together quickly, so it might have some issues and might not make as much sense as it should, but I think it's good enough to actually convey my message.

The KCA only works if heavily slathered with confirmation bias.

Among the many hypothesis on what stated the BB there are several based on the universe from nothing scenario. To be considered by science these hypothesis must in some way be scientifically or mathematically possible.

My main objection to the KCA is that the laws of thermodynamics and hence cause and effect did not coalesce until after the BB. So no cause is required in science.

Whether there was a cause, who knows. There is discussion at the moment concerning cosmic inflation and reheating (pre big bang)
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-physicists-simulate-critical-reheating-period.html



And while i am here, welcome to RF. Sit back and enjoy a cake or two before the staff canteen opens

 

[shunyadragon]

An uncaused cause that is the very first cause would have to be eternal, and perpetual. Otherwise you are dealing with an infinite regress of causes.

It is unknown and most likely ever knowable whether our physical existence is eternal or not. The argument is based on the assumption that our physical existence has a beginning, which fails. The possibility of an infinite regress is not relevant.

From the highest energy state to the lowest energy state what would make energy cyclical to be self perpetuating. Possibly nothing.

If nothing then a beginning to our existence is likely.

The philosophical concept of absolute nothing has no basis in science nor what know of the possibility of an eternal universe. The nature of our world underlying macro world of time, space, matter and energy, would the Quantum World

I have not seen anything eternal, or perpetual about our universe.

. . . because the question concerning whether our 'physical existence

Too little is known about quantum mechanics to know if at that level existence is perpetual.

'Arguing from ignorance' concerning Quantum Mechanics would be a fallacy.

However without space and time you can't have particles.

. . . but an eternal Quantum existence is possible.

Consciousness could be fundamental but that is another argument.

The question of consciousness beyond our physical existence is a theological assumption. Consciousness is a property of higher forms of animal life with a brain.

 

[NoToReligion]

Number 2 fails. There is evidence that our universe either began or is cyclic from a singularity, but than again our universe may be one of many as part of a multiverse which may be one of many multiverses in a physical existence that has no known beginning.

There is no evidence to support nor determine that our physical existence had a beginning. There is no known way to determine that our physical existence is eternal or temporal, nor infinite or finite.

I would've included this but I didn't want to use a hypothesis to debunk what is pretty much a hypothesis.

 

[NoToReligion]

Welcome to the forums. Everything we observe appears to have a cause. Therefore it seems to me to be a reasonable extrapolation that everything must have a cause, at least until we can prove that a thing doesn’t have a cause.

Everything you observe must be within the universe, you cannot observe anything outside of the universe. That is why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a composition fallacy: it requires that you assume that because parts of a whole are in one whole thing, the same things apply to the whole as the things inside of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hello! This is my first post on the forums, and I hope it'll be a good one. For those of you who do not know what the Kalam Cosmological Argument (or the KCA for short) is, here's the argument in its entirety used by theists.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God

Believe it or not, this argument is used quite often. That is surprising because of the following reasons:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (certainly true for things IN the universe, however you cannot say what is within something happens the same as something out of that thing, as it is a composition fallacy. For example, take a school of fish. From the perspective of somebody only able to see the school of fish, all fish within the school have a mother. So, the person concludes that the school of fish must have a mother. If you want to say this is an unfair analogy because you can replace the word "mother" with "cause," that is choosing one specific area of the argument and disregarding the other. The point of the argument isn't to give a cause of the school of fish, it is showing that looking to the parts of a group of objects doesn't mean that the group of objects came about the same way as the objects within the group. So while a watch may have a watchmaker, the universe does not have to have a universe maker.)
2. The universe began to exist (true, but look to last part)
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God (what? That makes no sense. Jumping from "the universe has a cause" to "that cause is god" is absurd, and certainly does not prove any one religion. In fact, that can be used to prove any religion. Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, you name it. And using this argument, my grandma can be God, if she lived long enough.)

This was kind of put together quickly, so it might have some issues and might not make as much sense as it should, but I think it's good enough to actually convey my message.

Kalam is ridiculously infested with logical fallacies like argument from ignorance, special pleading and the assumed conclusion

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Welcome to the forums. Everything we observe appears to have a cause.

That's not exactly true.
Take atomic decay. What causes it to decay at one time rather then another time? What causes neutrino X to be emitted rather then neutrino Y?
Or take virtual particles. What cause them to pop into existance, or disappear again for that matter?

We don't know. Meaning that we don't even know if there is a cause at all.

Therefore it seems to me to be a reasonable extrapolation that everything must have a cause, at least until we can prove that a thing doesn’t have a cause.

That's an argument from ignorance right out the gates.

You're going to assume that some proposition (everything has a cause) is correct "until" you can prove otherwise.

Textbook argument from ignorance.

Having said that, causality at the macroscopic level (newtonian physics, if you wish) is subject to the physics of the universe. The physics of the universe, apply IN the universe.

So you can't extrapolate the laws of physics as they manifest IN the universe and pretend as if they also apply "outside" of the universe, or "absent" the universe.

Lastly, causality is 100% a temporal phenomenon. Effects happen AFTER causes. Causes happen BEFORE effects. First a cause happens and then, later in time, the effect manifests.

Removing the universe would effectively remove the time dimension of the universe.
Meaning that temporal physics no longer apply.

So unless you can somehow show that absent the space-time continuum, there STILL exists some time dimension, causality goes out the window along with the universe itself.

Therefor, when talking about the very origins of the universe (ie, the process of going from NO universe, to a universe), causality simply is not a phenomenon that can be invoked. Because it doesn't exist yet.

 

[columbus]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God

I'm of two minds about KCA.
On one hand, it has a huge problem that is as intuitively true as the premises.
Even if the premises and reasoning work, it tells you absolutely nothing about the Creator. Not even whether or not the Creator still exists in any meaningful way.

I can think of at least two hypothetical scenarios where KCA is accurate, but not meaningful.
A) Creation as we know it isn't really the point. Maybe the singularity was the Creator sweeping It's studio.
Rather like Michelangelo sweeping his studio of leftover marble chips and dust after creating a masterpiece. The trash wasn't the point, but since marble is quite durable it all still exists somewhere, completely forgotten.

B) Suppose the Creator "died", or "discorporated", or whatever. And the universe as we know it is more akin to It's corpse than an intentional creation.

I'm not claiming that either of these are true. Only that KCA doesn't tell us anything useful. It certainly doesn't support the "ineffable sky king with superpowers" image of God posited by Abrahamic religionists.


On the other hand, KCA can provide a foundation for a personal beliefs system. Which, if it improves a person's life, is a good thing. I found it so for myself. The difference between theists and me is that I recognize it as a personal belief system. And that my beliefs are almost certainly far short of the Objective Truth(in other words, wrong), so I don't expect anyone else to believe as I do.

In fact, I don't often see a reason for even describing them to anybody else. So, I'm an agnostic deist, who generally self-labels "atheist". Because the difference between agnostic deist and atheist only matters to me, it's totally subjective.

So, while I don't find much objective truth in KCA, I find it personally useful.
Tom

 

[tayla]

The universe began to exist

Perhaps this premise is false. Perhaps whatever the universe is didn't actually begin.

 

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps this premise is false. Perhaps whatever the universe is didn't actually begin.

The most important argument is whether our physical existence that contains our universe 'began to exist.' It is pretty easy to assume that whether our physical existence is infinite or finite, or eternal or temporal will likely never be determined from the human perspective.

 

[We Never Know]

Hmm. According to quantum physics there are plenty of uncaused, spontaneous and random, processes in nature, it seems. Determinism is about a century out of date.

Not that I doubt your post, but to save me Google time, could you list several uncaused events? Please and thank you.

 

[dfnj]

3. Therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is God (what? That makes no sense. Jumping from "the universe has a cause" to "that cause is god" is absurd, and certainly does not prove any one religion. In fact, that can be used to prove any religion. Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, you name it. And using this argument, my grandma can be God, if she lived long enough.)

You are right but for the wrong reason in my opinion and way of thinking.

The Universe does not have a first cause. But God exists and is just a word to represent all that was, all that is, and all that will ever be. The Universe cannot be created because it has no boundaries. Only objects with boundaries can be created. Something without boundaries just exists.

People are too singular in their thinking. We have no evidence nothingness ever existed. I think our Big Bang is what is called a white hole in physics. In other words, our Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension.

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-white-holes.html

Here's another interesting idea. And that is "time" doesn't really exist in reality. Time is just an idea like God:

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time/

In our lives there just exists unanswerable questions. Most people are very uncomfortable with unanswerable questions so we invent religion. I don't think it's right or wrong to pretend we have concrete answers to unanswerable questions that make us feel uncomfortable. Not for me to judge.

 

[NoToReligion]

You are right but for the wrong reason in my opinion and way of thinking.

The Universe does not have a first cause. But God exists and is just a word to represent all that was, all that is, and all that will ever be. The Universe cannot be created because it has no boundaries. Only objects with boundaries can be created. Something without boundaries just exists.

People are too singular in their thinking. We have no evidence nothingness ever existed. I think our Big Bang is what is called a white hole in physics. In other words, our Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension.

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-white-holes.html

Here's another interesting idea. And that is "time" doesn't really exist in reality. Time is just an idea like God:

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time/

I in our lives there just exists unanswerable questions. Most people are very uncomfortable with unanswerable questions so we invent religion. I don't think it's right or wrong to pretend we have concrete answers to unanswerable questions that make us feel uncomfortable. Not for me to judge.

Correct, and this is one of my main issues with claiming that the Atheist position requires Creatio Ex Nihilo. It doesn't, and it never will, until scientists give evidence that it does or doesn't.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hmm. According to quantum physics there are plenty of uncaused, spontaneous and random, processes in nature, it seems. Determinism is about a century out of date.

Actually no, the only thing that may be considered random is the outcome of each event when there is multiple variables that determine the outcome in both the macro world and the micro world at the plank level of Quantum Mechanics. The overall pattern of events in both the macro and micro world are predictable and determined by underlying Laws of nature, and not random. For example the decay of one molecule of Uranium with the lose of an electron is random, but the pattern of the decay of the piece of Uranium can be predicted over time and is not random.

 

[exchemist]

Actually no, the only thing that may be considered random is the outcome of each event when there is multiple variables that determine the outcome in both the macro world and the micro world at the plank level of Quantum Mechanics. The overall pattern of events in both the macro and micro world are predictable and determined by underlying Laws of nature, and not random. For example the decay of one molecule of Uranium with the lose of an electron is random, but the pattern of the decay of the piece of Uranium can be predicted over time and is not random.

Yes and do. My point is that the individual decay is random and without apparent cause, according to our models.

I grant you that the models tell us there is a defined probability of the event, which is determined by the isotope in question, but the event itself when it occurs is seemingly triggered by nothing at all, just as the position of each photon dot, in the building up of an interference fringe pattern, is not seemingly caused by anything.