What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

[leroy]

"T=0" refers to a point in time. "When time was created" also refers to a point in time. I agree that "before time" is logically contradictory, which is why I'm dismissing your definitions - which imply a "before time" or "time outside of time" - as logically contradictory.


"Some number of causes" or "one or many causes" are two ways to express the exact same idea. I like "some number" better because "one or many" might suggest leaving out the possibility of "a few" causes. "Some number" can still be - but isn't necessarily - 1.

And I wasn't talking about leaving room for monotheism; I was talking about establishing monotheism. You do want to use Kalaam as the first step toward arguing that the Christian God exists, right?

My point was that there's an even wider gap to bridge from "the universe had some number of causes" (or, if you prefer, "one or many causes") to "the Christian God exists" than there is from "the universe had a single cause" to "the Christian God exists."

You've already run into serious problems arguing that the universe is caused. If you're going to also try to argue that the universe didn't have more than one cause, all I can say is: good luck.

Well I don't think my view implies that there was a before time.

Yes I would say that the KCA provides a step towards the existance of God, sure I am aware of the fact that aditional arguments are required to show that the Christian monotheist God is the true one.

 

[Koldo]

No, god is timeless , he excists independently of time, he caused time at T=0

Question 1:
What does it mean to exist independent of time ?
When you say that 'God exists' you are using a verb in the present tense. You are talking about existence within time.
Can you show something that exists independently of time ?

Question 2:
If something can exist independently of time, then why couldn't the initial singularity that gave rise to our universe also exist independently of time ?

 

[viole]

I don't understand the relevance of your question. I am not claiming that the sphere caused the half spheres I said that the act of fully cutting a sphsere is the cause.

Fine. How do you know then that it is not the other way round? That two half sphere rejoined to form a sphere and caused the scissors to move away from them along the rejoining line?

So do you agree that under a b theory, the baker would be the cause of the cake (and not the other was arround?

Not really. But this is maybe because causality makes basically no sense in B theory.

For what does it mean? That that cake would not exist without the baker at that spacetime location? Well, maybe the baker would not exist either at that spacetime location without the corresponding cake. And this is because, B theory and the general reversibility of the laws of nature, dictate that the baker could not have possibly baked that cake if that cake did not exist already in his future. And remember, what you call effects exist timelessly on the continuum. So, that cake existed already millions of years before the baker was born (on that reference frame). That is the consequence of B theory.

So, I can say, with the same evidence, that the baking of the baker has been caused by the cake in his future.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

Fine. How do you know then that it is not the other way round? That two half sphere rejoined to form a sphere and caused the scissors to move away from them along the rejoining line?


Not really. But this is maybe because causality makes basically no sense in B theory.

For what does it mean? That that cake would not exist without the baker at that spacetime location? Well, maybe the baker would not exist either at that spacetime location without the corresponding cake. And this is because, B theory and the general reversibility of the laws of nature, dictate that the baker could not have possibly baked that cake if that cake did not exist already in his future. And remember, what you call effects exist timelessly on the continuum. So, that cake existed already millions of years before the baker was born (on that reference frame). That is the consequence of B theory.

So, I can say, with the same evidence, that the baking of the baker has been caused by the cake in his future.

Ciao

- viole

I understand your general point, and I agree that under b theory sometimes it is hard (if not impossible) to determine which is the cause and which is the effect .but this is not always the case . For example without the cake the baker would still excist, but without the baker the cake wouldn't excist, this is why the baker would be the cause and the cake would be the effect even if both excist simultaneously.

Or to put it this way, a baker has the causal powers to get some milk , flower and eggs mix them, bake them and produce a cake. But the cake doesn't have the causal powers to create a baker.

 

[leroy]

Question 1:
What does it mean to exist independent of time ?
When you say that 'God exists' you are using a verb in the present tense. You are talking about existence within time.
Can you show something that exists independently of time ?

Question 2:
If something can exist independently of time, then why couldn't the initial singularity that gave rise to our universe also exist independently of time ?

Q1
It simply means that it's excistance is independent of time. For example if you grant that numbers or moral values excist independently of the human mind, then numbers and moral values would also be timeless objects (also called platonic objects)

Q2
I would not deny that possibility, maybe there was a timeless "cosmic egg" but I would argue the cosmic egg woulnt be a sufficient cause for the universe

 

[viole]

I understand your general point, and I agree that under b theory sometimes it is hard (if not impossible) to determine which is the cause and which is the effect .but this is not always the case . For example without the cake the baker would still excist, but without the baker the cake wouldn't excist, this is why the baker would be the cause and the cake would be the effect even if both excist simultaneously.

Or to put it this way, a baker has the causal powers to get some milk , flower and eggs mix them, bake them and produce a cake. But the cake doesn't have the causal powers to create a baker.

Not really, and that is the whole point of B theory.

Let’s anayze your claim: without the cake the baker could still exist, while without the baker the cake would not exist. Ergo, this asymmetry, tells what is the cause and what is the effect.

This is equivalent to: the (existence of the) baker is a necessary condition for the (existence of the) cake, but not a sufficient one. Cake entails baker, baker does not entail cake.

So, according to this, you seem to define cause an X and effect an Y, if

Y entails X, but X does not entail Y.

However, that does not work in a timeless set of things and events mapped on a timeless spacetime continuum. And this is because they both either exist or they both do not exist. To have a baker without the cake raises big questions about the ontological status of bakers. For why do we call it baker if he makes (and will never) make cakes? We know it is never because of the assumption that the cake does not exist on the continuum.

So, since they both must exist or not exist, then the existence of X is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of Y.

And the symmetry is re-established.

Anyway, if the baker existed without the cake, what has the baker actually caused, exactly?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Q2
I would not deny that possibility, maybe there was a timeless "cosmic egg" but I would argue the cosmic egg woulnt be a sufficient cause for the universe

You know what would and wouldn't be a sufficient cause for the universe? How do you know this?

 

[leroy]

Not really, and that is the whole point of B theory.

Let’s anayze your claim: without the cake the baker could still exist, while without the baker the cake would not exist. Ergo, this asymmetry, tells what is the cause and what is the effect.

This is equivalent to: the (existence of the) baker is a necessary condition for the (existence of the) cake, but not a sufficient one. Cake entails baker, baker does not entail cake.

So, according to this, you seem to define cause an X and effect an Y, if

Y entails X, but X does not entail Y.

However, that does not work in a timeless set of things and events mapped on a timeless spacetime continuum. And this is because they both either exist or they both do not exist. To have a baker without the cake raises big questions about the ontological status of bakers. For why do we call it baker if he makes (and will never) make cakes? We know it is never because of the assumption that the cake does not exist on the continuum.

So, since they both must exist or not exist, then the existence of X is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of Y.

And the symmetry is re-established.

Anyway, if the baker existed without the cake, what has the baker actually caused, exactly?

Ciao

- viole

To me it is easy to imagine a baker who intended (but failed) to create a cake. In this case the baker would exist but the cake wouldn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To me it is easy to imagine a baker who intended (but failed) to create a cake. In this case the baker would exist but the cake wouldn't.

How is someone who hasn't made a cake a baker? The baker doesn't exist as a baker until they bake something. The person who the baker was is the material cause of the baker, but the cake was the efficient cause of the baker.

 

[Koldo]

Q1
It simply means that it's excistance is independent of time. For example if you grant that numbers or moral values excist independently of the human mind, then numbers and moral values would also be timeless objects (also called platonic objects)

Can you show they would exist even in the absence of time ?

Q2
I would not deny that possibility, maybe there was a timeless "cosmic egg" but I would argue the cosmic egg woulnt be a sufficient cause for the universe

Why not ?

 

[viole]

To me it is easy to imagine a baker who intended (but failed) to create a cake. In this case the baker would exist but the cake wouldn't.

First of all it is not the baker that causes the cake, at best it is the successful chemical/process with all correct ingredients that causes the cake. And in this case, they must exist both or none. It is impossible to have a successful process and no cake, or a cake and no successful process.

Even if highly improbable, a spontaneous collection of all ingredients and the right temperature could create a cake, too. Without baker, in principle. And that is why the baker cannot be the cause of the cake, since cakes are then not impossible without bakers, in your definition of causality.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

First of all it is not the baker that causes the cake, at best it is the successful chemical/process with all correct ingredients that causes the cake. And in this case, they must exist both or none. It is impossible to have a successful process and no cake, or a cake and no successful process.

Even if highly improbable, a spontaneous collection of all ingredients and the right temperature could create a cake, too. Without baker, in principle. And that is why the baker cannot be the cause of the cake, since cakes are then not impossible without bakers, in your definition of causality.

Ciao

- viole

I don't think b theorists are committed to deny causal relations. ... But if they do (as you seem to be claiming) that would only add an additional reason to prefer a theory over b theory.

Ok granted the whole sucesfull process of baking a cake would necesairly create a cake. But it would still be obvious that the proces (baker, ingredients in the correct order, etc) is the cause and the cake is the effect.

 

[leroy]

How is someone who hasn't made a cake a baker? The baker doesn't exist as a baker until they bake something. The person who the baker was is the material cause of the baker, but the cake was the efficient cause of the baker.

Nobody is saying that the baker hasn't baked any cake.

It could be a baker who has baked other cakes, but failed to bake this particular cake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nobody is saying that the baker hasn't baked any cake.

It could be a baker who has baked other cakes, but failed to bake this particular cake.

So the person's first cake caused the baker, no?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I understand your general point, and I agree that under b theory sometimes it is hard (if not impossible) to determine which is the cause and which is the effect .but this is not always the case . For example without the cake the baker would still excist, but without the baker the cake wouldn't excist, this is why the baker would be the cause and the cake would be the effect even if both excist simultaneously.

Or to put it this way, a baker has the causal powers to get some milk , flower and eggs mix them, bake them and produce a cake. But the cake doesn't have the causal powers to create a baker.

In the macro world of reality, nothing can exist at the same time or occupy the same space within time. Cause and effect are accumulative, dependent, and continuous. Without time, there can be no cause and therefore no effect. Not only could nothing begin to exist, but nothing could continue to exist. There would be no passage of spacetime at all(past, present, or future). Time is required for there to be a link between changes in energy conservation states, and degrees of disorder(entropy) in a thermodynamically dependent Universe. Since the baker and the cake can't unmake themselves(time moving in reverse), it is almost simple-mindedness, that the cake and baker can be mutually dependent on each other. Cakes can certainly be made without bakers(automated factories), but bakers can only be made by mommy and daddy bakers. In the case of the baker and the cake, it is also very easy to discern between which is the cause and which is the effect. Why is discernment a problem?

I believe that the future is fixed(B theory), with the past and present. Perception of our real-time reality is created by the time-delay of sensory information from our sense organs reaching our brain. This creates the illusion that the "now" is really now. By the time we are aware of the "now", it has already passed. Since everything in the Universe is moving through both space and time, all are relative to different frames of reference. Since the speed of light is the same, no matter what the frame of reference is, it must be time and space that must accommodate for the differences in frames of references. This special relativity has been tested repeatedly, and proven to be accurate. Also, logic, mathematics, numbers, morality, do exist whether a mind exists or not. But again, our conception and understanding of abstract ideas, are subjectively dependent on cognitive processes, not the KCA.

In either case, how is time, space, causality, and motion, relevant to the KCA? What is the direct relationship between causality, and proof for the existence of any God? How does the KCA demonstrate that God is only the Christian God, and not Yosemite Sam, Thor, or the God of other religions? If the KCA is going to posit the incoherent "moment before time began", then its argument cannot get off the ground. The first moment is in itself identical to the first moment of bringing the universe into existence. You are simply applying conclusions from created premises that are NOT objectively true or verifiable(including the A theory of time). The KCA has been debunked thoroughly and completely, and by disarming people by agreeing with them, and then repining it, does not change this. What does the cause of the Universe and time and space, have to do with providing direct evidence for the existence of the Christian God of the Bible? Creative logical gymnastics, is not a substitute for empirical evidence. Even just one piece of empirical evidence would do. Especially, when the claim would defy well established scientific laws, and fallacy-free reasoning. You can make s**t sound good enough to eat, if you use the right words, and the right logic. But, I still wouldn't put it on the menu.

Presuppositionalists will always be found in the set of all arguments that are unfalsifiable or involve absolutes or infinity. You are essentially providing pseudo-sophistry for the ignorant to maintain their faith, in spite of zero evidence to support it. Outside of this set, lay the set of degrees of certainty, based on the application of empirical laws. This is the set of all applications of the scientific method of inquiry.
​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

YouTuber Dave S kindly provided a version of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument where William Lane Craig's separate definitions and arguments about each term have been pulled into one statement. Here it is:

P1) Everything that exists at t, where t is the first time at which it exists, where there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly and its existing at t is a tensed fact, has either an efficient and material cause, or an efficient but no material cause.

P2) The whole of material reality began to exist (at t, where t is the first time at which it exists, where there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly and its existing at t is a tensed fact).

P3) The whole of material reality cannot have a prior material cause (because if it did, then it did not really begin to exist).

C) Therefore, the whole of material reality has an efficient but no material cause.

And here are links to the source material Dave S drew from: Dear Theists, STOP USING THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT | Dave S on Patreon

@leroy - do you agree with all that?

 

[leroy]

YouTuber Dave S kindly provided a version of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument where William Lane Craig's separate definitions and arguments about each term have been pulled into one statement. Here it is:



And here are links to the source material Dave S drew from: Dear Theists, STOP USING THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT | Dave S on Patreon

@leroy - do you agree with all that?

The premises seem confusing, but yes I agree (I haven’t seen the video)


I am assuming that energy, time and space are part of what he calls “material reality”

 

[leroy]

In the macro world of reality, nothing can exist at the same time or occupy the same space within time. Cause and effect are accumulative, dependent, and continuous. Without time, there can be no cause and therefore no effect. Not only could nothing begin to exist, but nothing could continue to exist. There would be no passage of spacetime at all(past, present, or future). Time is required for there to be a link between changes in energy conservation states, and degrees of disorder(entropy) in a thermodynamically dependent Universe. Since the baker and the cake can't unmake themselves(time moving in reverse), it is almost simple-mindedness, that the cake and baker can be mutually dependent on each other. Cakes can certainly be made without bakers(automated factories), but bakers can only be made by mommy and daddy bakers. In the case of the baker and the cake, it is also very easy to discern between which is the cause and which is the effect. Why is discernment a problem?

I believe that the future is fixed(B theory), with the past and present. Perception of our real-time reality is created by the time-delay of sensory information from our sense organs reaching our brain. This creates the illusion that the "now" is really now. By the time we are aware of the "now", it has already passed. Since everything in the Universe is moving through both space and time, all are relative to different frames of reference. Since the speed of light is the same, no matter what the frame of reference is, it must be time and space that must accommodate for the differences in frames of references. This special relativity has been tested repeatedly, and proven to be accurate. Also, logic, mathematics, numbers, morality, do exist whether a mind exists or not. But again, our conception and understanding of abstract ideas, are subjectively dependent on cognitive processes, not the KCA.

In either case, how is time, space, causality, and motion, relevant to the KCA? What is the direct relationship between causality, and proof for the existence of any God? How does the KCA demonstrate that God is only the Christian God, and not Yosemite Sam, Thor, or the God of other religions? If the KCA is going to posit the incoherent "moment before time began", then its argument cannot get off the ground. The first moment is in itself identical to the first moment of bringing the universe into existence. You are simply applying conclusions from created premises that are NOT objectively true or verifiable(including the A theory of time). The KCA has been debunked thoroughly and completely, and by disarming people by agreeing with them, and then repining it, does not change this. What does the cause of the Universe and time and space, have to do with providing direct evidence for the existence of the Christian God of the Bible? Creative logical gymnastics, is not a substitute for empirical evidence. Even just one piece of empirical evidence would do. Especially, when the claim would defy well established scientific laws, and fallacy-free reasoning. You can make s**t sound good enough to eat, if you use the right words, and the right logic. But, I still wouldn't put it on the menu.

Presuppositionalists will always be found in the set of all arguments that are unfalsifiable or involve absolutes or infinity. You are essentially providing pseudo-sophistry for the ignorant to maintain their faith, in spite of zero evidence to support it. Outside of this set, lay the set of degrees of certainty, based on the application of empirical laws. This is the set of all applications of the scientific method of inquiry.
​

The relation to the KCA is that I am arguing that even on a “B theory of time” there would still be causes and effects, implying that in theory one can elaborate an alternative version for the KCA and reach the conclusion that the universe had a cause, even if B theory happens to be true.

In general terms, my arguments are

1 there are good reasons to reject the b theory of time

2 but even if the b theory of time where true, one could reelaborate the KCA and reach the conclusion that therefore the universe had a cause. (given that events would still have causes even in a b theory of time)

At this point we are only dealing with point 2

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The premises seem confusing, but yes I agree (I haven’t seen the video)


I am assuming that energy, time and space are part of what he calls “material reality”

The "he" in question is Craig. David S just went through Craig's "Reasonable Faith" site to find all the instances where Craig defines and explains the terms in the argument.

Here's the closest I could find on Reasonable Faith to an explanation from Craig about what he means by "all of material reality:"

KEVIN HARRIS: Next he gets into the definition of “universe” and he discusses your definition. He says, “Craig defines the universe as being all of material reality.” Then he says, “This is hardly what scientists mean by universe.”

DR. CRAIG: Well, I took this definition from what scientists mean. He left out one word, and that is contiguous. I think the universe is all of contiguous material reality. It allows that there could be other universes which are causally unconnected with our universe. But any kind of contiguous physical material reality, I think, would count as being part of the “universe.” I think that is what scientists mean by “universe.” I have to say here I am not trying to be clever. I am trying to use the word “universe” in the way that everybody uses it to refer to this thing around us in which we live and which is studied by cosmology and probably is about 14.7 billion years old and is expanding. That is what I mean. I am not trying to be clever here. If he has some alternative definition, I’d love to hear it. I think the argument can probably go through on that basis. There is nothing unusual about how I conceive the universe.

KEVIN HARRIS: He says, “Anyway, if we accept the modern scientific definition, there is no reason we couldn’t say that yes this universe as it currently is did have a cause some 13.7 billion years ago.”

DR. CRAIG: OK. That is what I’m arguing for. I don’t see the problem.

Recent Responses to the Kalam Argument | Reasonable Faith

 

[Audie]

The "he" in question is Craig. David S just went through Craig's "Reasonable Faith" site to find all the instances where Craig defines and explains the terms in the argument.

Here's the closest I could find on Reasonable Faith to an explanation from Craig about what he means by "all of material reality:"

Recent Responses to the Kalam Argument | Reasonable Faith