What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

[Audie]

I wonder why people keep hooking up
wires to this shameful electrified corpse
of an argument for god?

It is getting embarrassing.

 

[leroy]

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

ok granted, that is a good representation of the argument

 

[leroy]

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

Sure, that would be an example where it would be controversial to define who is the cause and who is the effect. But that doesn’t mean that there are no uncontroversial examples, pretend that John and Linda are getting married and decided to call the baker to order a cake, in this case it is obvious that the marriage was one of the causes for why the cake exists, the cake exists because of the marriage ( + other causes) but the marriage was not dependant upon the existence of the cake.


So clearly the cake is the effect and the marriage is one of the causes that produced this effect.

 

[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.

Well yes. The problem, however, is that even if we managed, somehow, to make sense of causality in B theory, you would still have that huge elephant in the room.

Namely, that under B theory, nothing begins to exist. Since the ontology of all things past and future is the same. They exist in a tenseless form. That is really what characterizes B theory.

So, let’s analyze Kalam under B theory:

1) everything that begins to exist has a cause.
That is true. The set of things that begin to exist is empty, and the elements of an empty set satisfy any property

2) the Universe began to exist.
This is obviously false under B theory. The Universe is a 4 dimensionale spacetime block that cannot possibly begin anything, without huge paradoxes

3) therefore the Universe has a cause
Non sequitur, since 2 is false

Actually, under B theory the following is more promising

1) everything that does not begin to exist has no cause
2) the universe did not begin to exist
3) therefore, the universe has no cause

The conclusion obtains, if the premise obtain. Premise 2 obtains because it is a necessary consequence of B theory, which we are assuming

You might want to attack premise 1, but then you will endorse the idea that timeless things can still have a cause. Including your first alleged cause of the universe.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, that would be an example where it would be controversial to define who is the cause and who is the effect. But that doesn’t mean that there are no uncontroversial examples, pretend that John and Linda are getting married and decided to call the baker to order a cake, in this case it is obvious that the marriage was one of the causes for why the cake exists, the cake exists because of the marriage ( + other causes) but the marriage was not dependant upon the existence of the cake.

But when the cake was created, the marriage did not exist. Typically, a wedding cake is made before the wedding. So you do think that causality can go backward in time?

So clearly the cake is the effect and the marriage is one of the causes that produced this effect.

Unless you consider the cake to be one element of the wedding and the wedding to be the thing that caused the marriage.

 

[leroy]

But when the cake was created, the marriage did not exist. Typically, a wedding cake is made before the wedding. So you do think that causality can go backward in time?

Under the B theory of time causes and effects are all simultaneous. My point is that even without a gap of time, at least sometimes it is possible to identify which is the cause and which is the effect.

Unless you consider the cake to be one element of the wedding and the wedding to be the thing that caused the marriage.

But you see, in any case we still have a cause and an effect.

 

[leroy]

Well yes. The problem, however, is that even if we managed, somehow, to make sense of causality in B theory, you would still have that huge elephant in the room.

Namely, that under B theory, nothing begins to exist. Since the ontology of all things past and future is the same. They exist in a tenseless form. That is really what characterizes B theory.

So, let’s analyze Kalam under B theory:

1) everything that begins to exist has a cause.
That is true. The set of things that begin to exist is empty, and the elements of an empty set satisfy any property

2) the Universe began to exist.
This is obviously false under B theory. The Universe is a 4 dimensionale spacetime block that cannot possibly begin anything, without huge paradoxes

3) therefore the Universe has a cause
Non sequitur, since 2 is false

Actually, under B theory the following is more promising

1) everything that does not begin to exist has no cause
2) the universe did not begin to exist
3) therefore, the universe has no cause

The conclusion obtains, if the premise obtain. Premise 2 obtains because it is a necessary consequence of B theory, which we are assuming

You might want to attack premise 1, but then you will endorse the idea that timeless things can still have a cause. Including your first alleged cause of the universe.

Ciao

- viole

From the B theory of time, it doesn’t follow that the universe is eternal, the “block” could still have a beginning and a cause.

For example if the universe (the block) disappears tomorrow, one would conclude that the block had a finite number of events (even if all of them are simultaneous and tensless) agree?

As for the kalam cosmological argument, I would simply have to change my language and use different words, perhaps I would say something like this

Everything that is contingent has a cause

The universe is contingent

Therefore the universe has a cause

Or perhaps I would change the word “contingent” for “dependent on time”… this is the first time I try to formulate a “b-KCA” so perhaps my premises would have to be subjected to some sort of trial and error, until I find the correct words. but in any case, this is just a semantic limitation,

 

[viole]

From the B theory of time, it doesn’t follow that the universe is eternal, the “block” could still have a beginning and a cause.

For example if the universe (the block) disappears tomorrow, one would conclude that the block had a finite number of events (even if all of them are simultaneous and tensless) agree?

Of course not. Since “tomorrow” is part of the continuum/block, and therefore what you postulate is incoherent.

I am afraid you speak of B theory still assuming A theory. Einstein warned us that time flow (A theory) is a persistent illusion.

As for the kalam cosmological argument, I would simply have to change my language and use different words, perhaps I would say something like this

Everything that is contingent has a cause

The universe is contingent

Therefore the universe has a cause

Or perhaps I would change the word “contingent” for “dependent on time”… this is the first time I try to formulate a “b-KCA” so perhaps my premises would have to be subjected to some sort of trial and error, until I find the correct words. but in any case, this is just a semantic limitation,

Tell me when you are finished. You seem to go in the direction of Leibnitz principle of sufficient reason. You just need a bit more of structure, though.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

Of course not. Since “tomorrow” is part of the continuum/block, and therefore what you postulate is incoherent.

I am afraid you speak of B theory still assuming A theory. Einstein warned us that time flow (A theory) is a persistent illusion.



Tell me when you are finished. You seem to go in the direction of Leibnitz principle of sufficient reason. You just need a bit more of structure, though.

Ciao

- viole

Well that is because the English language doesn’t seem to have enough words to speak in terms of b theory. My point is that under the b theory, the number of events could in theory be finite, agree?

As for the b-KCA in my opinion it is just a semantic limitation, I mean what term should I use? How should I call the subjective experience that our brains interpret as “begging to exists”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well that is because the English language doesn’t seem to have enough words to speak in terms of b theory. My point is that under the b theory, the number of events could in theory be finite, agree?

How do you define an "event?"

Zeno's Paradox suggests that a finite span of time could be sliced into infinitely many infinitesimal slices of time. A finite number can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series.

"Finite in size" does not necessarily mean "has a finite number of parts."

 

[viole]

Well that is because the English language doesn’t seem to have enough words to speak in terms of b theory. My point is that under the b theory, the number of events could in theory be finite, agree?

In theory. But since space seems to be infinite, then spacetime would be infinite, too. So, it is more likely than not that there are infinite events, as well.

As for the b-KCA in my opinion it is just a semantic limitation, I mean what term should I use? How should I call the subjective experience that our brains interpret as “begging to exists”

In your shoes, I would admit that Kalam is toast if B theory is true, and move to cosmological arguments that are independent from an ontology of time and causality. For instance the ones based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which can be seen as a generalization of causality, and contingency.

However, they are more complex and might require deployment of modal logic to defend them appropriately.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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

You have made a Zero argument to support any link between causality, and the existence of any specific God. Let alone your God. Using either A or B theories of time, only adds more unsubstantiated premises, to accommodate for your unsupported leap of faith. Again this argument has already died a natural death, by collapsing under its own logic long ago. Just like all other fact-Less arguments that have preceded it, and like all future revamped arguments(like this addition of time theories, or ID). They too, will also fail once the questions of HOW and What are queried. There are those that have spent, or are spending, their entire lives trying to answer these metaphysical questions, without ever injecting the God premise. What makes you think that all the philosophical semantics gymnastics in the world, will ever supplant any of the evidence produced by scientific inquiry?

I personally don't accept the A theory, because it would imply that we are moving at the speed of light, and that the "now" has no past or future. This is absurd, and can easily be proven by the speed of our sensory perception of time and the forward movement of events. It can be proven as nonsense by special relativity, entropy, and probability. But because of our different frames of references, we can't prove that the "now" exists. Therefore time will always exhibits both properties, as a flow of events, and as a series of separate individual events. Events that are always present in the continuum, or events that are forever lost.

Again, none of this is relevant to the existence of God. At best it only implies that our Universe had a beginning. Which the evidence also, seems to agree with. But the existence of a God, will always be a Gap-filling, Begging the Question, religious leap of faith.

 

[Audie]

You have made a Zero argument to support any link between causality, and the existence of any specific God. Let alone your God. Using either A or B theories of time, only adds more unsubstantiated premises, to accommodate for your unsupported leap of faith. Again this argument has already died a natural death, by collapsing under its own logic long ago. Just like all other fact-Less arguments that have preceded it, and like all future revamped arguments(like this addition of time theories, or ID). They too, will also fail once the questions of HOW and What are queried. There are those that have spent, or are spending, their entire lives trying to answer these metaphysical questions, without ever injecting the God premise. What makes you think that all the philosophical semantics gymnastics in the world, will ever supplant any of the evidence produced by scientific inquiry?

I personally don't accept the A theory, because it would imply that we are moving at the speed of light, and that the "now" has no past or future. This is absurd, and can easily be proven by the speed of our sensory perception of time and the forward movement of events. It can be proven as nonsense by special relativity, entropy, and probability. But because of our different frames of references, we can't prove that the "now" exists. Therefore time will always exhibits both properties, as a flow of events, and as a series of separate individual events. Events that are always present in the continuum, or events that are forever lost.

Again, none of this is relevant to the existence of God. At best it only implies that our Universe had a beginning. Which the evidence also, seems to agree with. But the existence of a God, will always be a Gap-filling, Begging the Question, religious leap of faith.

The horse was dead at the starting gate, but a few
more kicks wont hurt anything.

 

[tas8831]

In my experience atheists tend to dance around the KCA but they usually don't explain with clear words their point of disagreement.

1. 
   In this context "universe" means " all phisical reality" (including time) universe simply means all the natural world.

1. 
   The claim is that regardless if there was something before the big bang or not , there was an absolute begining at some point in the past.

So what is wrong with the KCA? Do you agree with premise 1? Do you agree with premise 2? Does the conclusion follows from the premises?

What exactly do you think is wrong with the argument? Please try to provide direct and clear answers.

There are only 3 alternatives

1 the universe (the physical/ natural world) came from nothing (literally nothing)

2 the universe has always existed, it is eternal

3 the universe has a cause (which by definition would have to be a supernatural cause)

So which one of these 3 alternatives do you pick? Or perhaps there is a fourth option that I haven't thought about.

The most obvious failing is the arbitrary cut-off of the application of the major premise - once we get to God, no more 'cause' needed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In my experience atheists tend to dance around the KCA but they usually don't explain with clear words their point of disagreement.

1. 
   In this context "universe" means " all phisical reality" (including time) universe simply means all the natural world.

1. 
   The claim is that regardless if there was something before the big bang or not , there was an absolute begining at some point in the past.

So what is wrong with the KCA? Do you agree with premise 1? Do you agree with premise 2? Does the conclusion follows from the premises?

What exactly do you think is wrong with the argument? Please try to provide direct and clear answers.

From the top of my head, I object to the word "cause".

Causality is a physical phenomenon OF the universe. Of physics as it applies in the universe.
The argument takes the physics of the universe then removes the universe, and then posits that the physics of the universe that was just removed, still applies.

I agree that the universe as we know it "began" to exist at T = 0.
Quotes around "began" because maybe the universe merely changed.

I don't know if "cause" is an appropriate word to use here.


It's also very unclear to me how premise one can be shown to be true.

There are only 3 alternatives
1 the universe (the physical/ natural world) came from nothing (literally nothing)
2 the universe has always existed, it is eternal
3 the universe has a cause (which by definition would have to be a supernatural cause)

How did you narrow it down to just these three?
What about a larger eternal multiverse for example?
And why from "literally nothing"? Why can't the universe be part of some bigger thing - whatever that may be?

And if there is a cause for the universe, why then would that "have to be" a supernatural one?
What if there is such a thing as a natural eternal multi-verse which creates bubble universes like the one we live in ad infinitum? Then whatever process created this universe, would be a natural process. Right?

So which one of these 3 alternatives do you pick?

I pick none, because I don't know.
So I just say that I don't know.

I don't see much point in guessing things that aren't known - and perhaps even unknowable.

 

[Magical Wand]

In my experience atheists tend to dance around the KCA but they usually don't explain with clear words their point of disagreement.

1. 
   In this context "universe" means " all phisical reality" (including time) universe simply means all the natural world.

1. 
   The claim is that regardless if there was something before the big bang or not , there was an absolute begining at some point in the past.

So what is wrong with the KCA? Do you agree with premise 1? Do you agree with premise 2? Does the conclusion follows from the premises?

What exactly do you think is wrong with the argument? Please try to provide direct and clear answers.

There are only 3 alternatives

1 the universe (the physical/ natural world) came from nothing (literally nothing)

2 the universe has always existed, it is eternal

3 the universe has a cause (which by definition would have to be a supernatural cause)

So which one of these 3 alternatives do you pick? Or perhaps there is a fourth option that I haven't thought about.

The Kalam is a terrible argument. We can discuss the several reasons why I think so if you're interested in having a friendly discussion about the topic.

 

[leroy]

The Kalam is a terrible argument. We can discuss the several reasons why I think so if you're interested in having a friendly discussion about the topic.

I would love to have that conversation


start by posting your biggest objection to this argument

 

[Magical Wand]

I would love to have that conversation


start by posting your biggest objection to this argument

Nice. So, I'll post a bunch of them and then we can discuss one by one.

(1) There is no good scientific reason for concluding our Lorentzian four-dimensional spatio-temporal manifold had an absolute beginning. Of course, we can debate Big Bang cosmology, singularity theorems (like the BGV and Hawking-Penrose theorems) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I have read extensively about these subjects and asked about them to several professional cosmologists (including Vilenkin, Andrei Linde and many others). See here, here and here. (2) The philosophical arguments against an infinite regress of past events (viz., the traversal of an infinite timeline) as well as arguments against an actual infinite are fallacious and consequently unsound. Many philosophers agree on this point (e.g., Oppy, Arnold, Moriston and many others). We can debate that as well. (3) Even if it had a beginning, there is no reason to conclude it had a cause, as causality seems to be a property of the physical manifold -- if there is no manifold, there is no causality. So, you have the burden to demonstrate causality is transcendental (and metaphysically necessary) rather than a description of how the manifold works (and thus dependent on the manifold). (4) Even if causality holds without our Lorentzian manifold, it is a non-sequitur to say the cause must be immaterial, non-spatial and personal. This apologetical claim assumes all of physical reality began, and there is no proof this is true. (5) Even if it is shown that the cause is immaterial, it doesn't follow it must be a personal mind. Beyond the fact that many philosophers (e.g., Alexander Pruss) argue abstract objects are causally efficacious, there are other equally speculative proposals that postulate immaterial substances. Just one example: "Life is defined by Qi even though it is impossible to grasp, measure, quantify, see or isolate. Immaterial yet essential, the material world is formed by it. An invisible force known only by its effects, Qi is recognized indirectly by what it fosters, generates and protects... Qi is an invisible substance, as well as an immaterial force that manifests as movement and activity." (Between Heaven and Earth, pp. 30, 34, by Beinfield and Korngold) (6) Even if I grant an uncaused sentient being, that wouldn't demonstrate it is still around today. Couldn't it have simply started everything and then extinguished itself? As philosopher Paul Edwards explained: "Nor does the [Kalam] argument establish the present existence of the first cause. It does not prove this, since experience clearly shows that an effect may exist long after its cause has been destroyed." Critiques of God (p.46)

You can choose any of them and we'll start discussing it.

 

[leroy]

Nice. So, I'll post a bunch of them and then we can discuss one by one.

(1) There is no good scientific reason for concluding our Lorentzian four-dimensional spatio-temporal manifold had an absolute beginning. Of course, we can debate Big Bang cosmology, singularity theorems (like the BGV and Hawking-Penrose theorems) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I have read extensively about these subjects and asked about them to several professional cosmologists (including Vilenkin, Andrei Linde and many others). See here, here and here. (2) The philosophical arguments against an infinite regress of past events (viz., the traversal of an infinite timeline) as well as arguments against an actual infinite are fallacious and consequently unsound. Many philosophers agree on this point (e.g., Oppy, Arnold, Moriston and many others). We can debate that as well. (3) Even if it had a beginning, there is no reason to conclude it had a cause, as causality seems to be a property of the physical manifold -- if there is no manifold, there is no causality. So, you have the burden to demonstrate causality is transcendental (and metaphysically necessary) rather than a description of how the manifold works (and thus dependent on the manifold). (4) Even if causality holds without our Lorentzian manifold, it is a non-sequitur to say the cause must be immaterial, non-spatial and personal. This apologetical claim assumes all of physical reality began, and there is no proof this is true. (5) Even if it is shown that the cause is immaterial, it doesn't follow it must be a personal mind. Beyond the fact that many philosophers (e.g., Alexander Pruss) argue abstract objects are causally efficacious, there are other equally speculative proposals that postulate immaterial substances. Just one example: "Life is defined by Qi even though it is impossible to grasp, measure, quantify, see or isolate. Immaterial yet essential, the material world is formed by it. An invisible force known only by its effects, Qi is recognized indirectly by what it fosters, generates and protects... Qi is an invisible substance, as well as an immaterial force that manifests as movement and activity." (Between Heaven and Earth, pp. 30, 34, by Beinfield and Korngold) (6) Even if I grant an uncaused sentient being, that wouldn't demonstrate it is still around today. Couldn't it have simply started everything and then extinguished itself? As philosopher Paul Edwards explained: "Nor does the [Kalam] argument establish the present existence of the first cause. It does not prove this, since experience clearly shows that an effect may exist long after its cause has been destroyed." Critiques of God (p.46)

You can choose any of them and we'll start discussing it.

Wow, you seem to be scientists, I am just a layman so obviously I don’t aspire to be at your level.


But anyway let’s start with the second law of thermodynamics.

P1 If the universe is past eternal the entropy of the universe would be nearly 100%

P2 the entropy of the universe is low (far from 100%)

Therefore the universe is not past eternal.

An analogy could be if you have a glass of water with ice, you can safely conclude that the water has only been there for a limited amount of time, (otherwise the ice would melt)

This seems to be strong evidence in favor of the beginning of the universe.

What’s your opinion on this? How can you have low entropy if the universe is past eternal?

 

[Meow Mix]

Wow, you seem to be scientists, I am just a layman so obviously I don’t aspire to be at your level.


But anyway let’s start with the second law of thermodynamics.

P1 If the universe is past eternal the entropy of the universe would be nearly 100%

P2 the entropy of the universe is low (far from 100%)

Therefore the universe is not past eternal.

An analogy could be if you have a glass of water with ice, you can safely conclude that the water has only been there for a limited amount of time, (otherwise the ice would melt)

This seems to be strong evidence in favor of the beginning of the universe.

What’s your opinion on this? How can you have low entropy if the universe is past eternal?

The universe you see has an entropic gradient, but given things like inflation, the universe you see is not the entire universe (it is just where the inflaton field has decayed; which gives you a bubble where the entropic gradient clock begins, and gives local time its arrow). But elsewhere, the inflaton field has not decayed; it is a different time, a metatime.

So you can have a beginning of time (local time), but that wouldn’t be an ontological beginning.

This isn’t an exact picture, but a simple way to think of it is if you have a space in which you create universes that live and die, obviously time would “begin” in those universes, and time would end in those universes (if Penrose is onto something, which he might be). But the overall space those universes develop in has its own time. So while universe A begins and ends, perhaps universe Z begins and ends temporally after that entire process. (The point being: do you see how there is a more encompassing, and different, time than the time we know of here in our entropic gradient in this case?)

What you need to disabuse yourself of is the notion that the only time that exists is defined by the entropic gradient that we see; but there could be gradients outside of this universe’s entropic gradient.

Again, I have vastly oversimplified all of this (for one reason, I’m on a phone right now), but the general concept conveyed should still help to answer the question.

Having multiple (infinite) local universes is a hard consequence to escape from with inflation.