• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
To say that God begun to exist is logically incoherent.
How so?

Let's say that an entity existed that weilded miracles, did everything your religion of choice claims God did, etc... but it began to exist at some point. Would you really say "no, that's not God?"

But it is also irrelevant. For the sake of this thread we can asume that God had a cause If you whant

As far as the KCA is concerned, the universe had a cause. Whether if God had a cause or not is irelevant and beyond the scope of the KCA
It's irrelevant because the Kalaam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God.

I'm also interested in the other stuff that you tacked onto Kalaam in the OP. You do realize that you implied that the cause of the universe does not exist physically, right?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Because God has always existed
... you assume.

If that was a defensible premise, you wouldn't need alm the hand-waving of Kalaam. Here's an argument that's perfectly valid:

- God is eternal.
- Therefore God exists at all points in time.
- Therefore, God exists at this point in time.
- Therefore, God exists right now.
- Therefore, God exists.

But you haven't done this. I assume you haven't done it because you realize that the premise isn't reliable... that it's just your assertion. Correct? If so, why should we accept it when you assert it in other cases?

BTW: "God is eternal" does not necessarily imply "God is uncaused." Something that was caused as time began could be considered eternal (i.e. existing at all points in time).

In fact, by a reasonable definition of "eternal," spacetime itself is eternal, since there is no point in time when spacetime did not exist.

You included spacetime in your definition of "the universe," right?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Because God has always existed


What, precisely, does that mean?

1. God has existed for an infinite amount of time into the past.

2. Whenever time existed, God did also.

The two are different because, again, time is part of the universe. if the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, then time itself is not infinite. Which would mean, under 2, that whenever God existed, so did the universe.

What you consistently seem to ignore are two simple facts:

1. Time is part of the universe.
2. Causality is part of the universe.

What these mean is that the phrase 'before the universe' is literally meaningless. And so is the phrase 'the cause of the universe'.

The basic mistake in the KCA is ignoring these two facts. Instead of acknowledging that the most we can say is that 'everything in the universe that begins to exist has a cause within the universe' and even that this might well be false, it assumes a much stronger and less justified assertion of causality outside of the bounds where it even makes sense.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If you whant a complete response then read the paper that I quoted, it explains why cyclic universes (and multiverses) can't be infinite in to the past.

So even if Steinhart is correct and the universe is cyclic it wouldn't be star sl in to the past .

If you disagree, then read the paper and explain why are the authors wrong.

I read the paper and that is not the conclusion of the paper. Also the bgv theorem acknowledges alternatives to its theorem. It is not the gospel of cosmology. Science does not work like your ancient view of a Biblical world.

The proposals of the bgv theorem and Steinhardt's are not accepted in science fact,but contrasting proposals for the nature of the origins of universes,and DO NOT make absolute conclusions.nor address the issue of whether our physical existence is infinite and/or eternal or not. In fact, they both can be wrong and replaced by future theorems and hypothesis.



Yes the paper deals with that scenario.

Such a universe would be in a state of heat death, to avoid heat death you can establish that each cycle is larger than the previous , but in such case you would not avoid the bgv theorem.

The paper acknowledges alternatives which you fail to acknowledge this. I quoted the authors clearly stating that the bgv theorem ONLY applies to the beginning of our universe and all possible universes.

Fine, let's assume that Steinhart is correct, my point (as shown in the paper that I quoted) is that even if Steinhartt model is true, the universe would not be past eternal.

Actually, I cited the authors of the bgv theorem and Steinhardt acknowledged the possibility of an infinite universe,and NOT the most important issue, which you have failed to address is whether there is an infinite and/or eternal physical existence the Quantum World,. The real issue is NOT whether our universe is infinite or not.

Still waiting for a scientific reference that refutes Steinhardt. A possible alternate view of the bgv theorem is not a refutation of Steinhardt.

Still waiting . . .
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Why can't we say that the universe ( including time) begun to excist at the big bang 13 B years ago? To me that is the simplest explanation
For Kalaam to work, it's not enough to say that the "simplest" explanation is that the universe began to exist. For the argument to work, this has to be the only possible explanation.

And remember: talking about concepts that require time in a context "outside of time" is nonsense.

If someone told you that he lives "north of the North Pole," you would be perfectly justified in saying "no you don't - there's no such place," when you say that things happened "before time began," I'm justified in saying "no it didn't - there was no such time."
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Why can't we say that the universe ( including time) begun to excist at the big bang 13 B years ago? To me that is the simplest explanation

No problem at all if you don't understand that to mean there was a time before that.

The problem then becomes: do we know of causality that can take place without time ? If so the big bang couldn't have been caused by anything.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
How so?

Let's say that an entity existed that weilded miracles, did everything your religion of choice claims God did, etc... but it began to exist at some point. Would you really say "no, that's not God?"


It's irrelevant because the Kalaam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God.

I'm also interested in the other stuff that you tacked onto Kalaam in the OP. You do realize that you implied that the cause of the universe does not exist physically, right?
The KCA tries to stablish that the universe (the physical / natural world) had a cause.

If this is true the cause would by necessity Be non physical / non natural.

You are correct the cause may or may not be causeless, that is beyond the scope of the KCA
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
... you assume.

If that was a defensible premise, you wouldn't need alm the hand-waving of Kalaam. Here's an argument that's perfectly valid:

- God is eternal.
- Therefore God exists at all points in time.
- Therefore, God exists at this point in time.
- Therefore, God exists right now.
- Therefore, God exists.

But you haven't done this. I assume you haven't done it because you realize that the premise isn't reliable... that it's just your assertion. Correct? If so, why should we accept it when you assert it in other cases?

BTW: "God is eternal" does not necessarily imply "God is uncaused." Something that was caused as time began could be considered eternal (i.e. existing at all points in time).

In fact, by a reasonable definition of "eternal," spacetime itself is eternal, since there is no point in time when spacetime did not exist.

You included spacetime in your definition of "the universe," right?

With eternal I simply mean that it has excuses from infinite past. To the present.

If the universe is 13B years old then it wouldn't be eternal
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The KCA tries to stablish that the universe (the physical / natural world) had a cause.
Tries but fails, yes.

If this is true the cause would by necessity Be non physical / non natural.
You keep on saying this, but you haven't actually made a case for it.

You might want to start to explain what you mean by "non physical / non natural." To me, "natural" is synonymous with "existing," so "non natural" would mean "non-existent." I assume you mean something else.

You are correct the cause may or may not be causeless, that is beyond the scope of the KCA
Most of your argument in the OP is beyond the scope of the Kalaam argument.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
leroy said:
Because God has always existed

You need to do more than to make empty claims and use specially tailored definitions. But then if you did that you would quit beating this dead horse.
The thing is that it is irelevant, I personally would argue that God has always existed, but for the sake of this thread we can assume that God had a cause.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No problem at all if you don't understand that to mean there was a time before that.

The problem then becomes: do we know of causality that can take place without time ? If so the big bang couldn't have been caused by anything.

The alternative is very simple, "simultaneous causation" the big band and it's cause are simultaneous, both took place at the first moment of time.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
For Kalaam to work, it's not enough to say that the "simplest" explanation is that the universe began to exist. For the argument to work, this has to be the only possible explanation.

And remember: talking about concepts that require time in a context "outside of time" is nonsense.

If someone told you that he lives "north of the North Pole," you would be perfectly justified in saying "no you don't - there's no such place," when you say that things happened "before time began," I'm justified in saying "no it didn't - there was no such time."
Grate, the good news is that I am not saying that things happened before time.

For the argument to work, this has to be the only possible explanation.

Not true, all I have to do is prove that it is the best explanation.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I read the paper and that is not the conclusion of the paper. Also the bgv theorem acknowledges alternatives to its theorem. It is not the gospel of cosmology. Science does not work like your ancient view of a Biblical world.

The proposals of the bgv theorem and Steinhardt's are not accepted in science fact,but contrasting proposals for the nature of the origins of universes,and DO NOT make absolute conclusions.nor address the issue of whether our physical existence is infinite and/or eternal or not. In fact, they both can be wrong and replaced by future theorems and hypothesis.





The paper acknowledges alternatives which you fail to acknowledge this. I quoted the authors clearly stating that the bgv theorem ONLY applies to the beginning of our universe and all possible universes.



Actually, I cited the authors of the bgv theorem and Steinhardt acknowledged the possibility of an infinite universe,and NOT the most important issue, which you have failed to address is whether there is an infinite and/or eternal physical existence the Quantum World,. The real issue is NOT whether our universe is infinite or not.

Still waiting for a scientific reference that refutes Steinhardt. A possible alternate view of the bgv theorem is not a refutation of Steinhardt.

Still waiting . . .
I won't answer to you untill you ether

1 admit that the paper that I quoted shows (with a high degree of certainty) that cyclic models can't be past eternal

Or

2 you provide an explanation on how your model avoids the issues raised in the paper. (Explain why are the authors of the paper wrong)

From the paper
We discuss three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal infation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe. The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning.
The authors are clearly concluding that cyclic models are not beginingless. So why are they wrong
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
With eternal I simply mean that it has excuses from infinite past. To the present.
But in this thread, you've consistently argued that time had a beginning a finite time ago... i.e. that "infinite past" does not exist.

IOW, if we accept all your premises, we can safely assume that anything that is necessarily eternal - as you've defined the term - cannot exist.

If the universe is 13B years old then it wouldn't be eternal
Unless we used a definition of "eternal" like "existing for all time," which I think is a reasonable way to define it.

However, here's the thing about adjectives like "eternal" (and "necessary"): they aren't actually attributes. Calling something "eternal" doesn't actually describe the attributes of a thing; it's actually a disguised claim for the existence of the thing.

If we're approaching the question honestly, we would never assume that something is necessarily "eternal" right off the bat. Instead, "eternal" is a conclusion that can only properly be reached by establishing that the thing really does exist at all times.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Grate, the good news is that I am not saying that things happened before time.
It seems to me that this is exactly what you're saying when you say "the universe ( including time) begun to excist at the big bang 13 B years ago."

Not true, all I have to do is prove that it is the best explanation.
Sorry - that's not how proofs work. You haven't established the premise "The universe began to exist" unless you've established that there's no possibility that it could have been otherwise.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
The alternative is very simple, "simultaneous causation" the big band and it's cause are simultaneous, both took place at the first moment of time.

For clarity's sake: Do you mean God didn't exist before the big bang ?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I won't answer to you untill you ether

1 admit that the paper that I quoted shows (with a high degree of certainty) that cyclic models can't be past eternal

Or

2 you provide an explanation on how your model avoids the issues raised in the paper. (Explain why are the authors of the paper wrong)

From the paper

The authors are clearly concluding that cyclic models are not beginningless. So why are they wrong

They are not wrong nor right, science does not work that way. The bgv theorem and Steinhardts hypothesis are at present different hypothesis and/or theorems based on the same evidence, and as I said before there will be more in the future that better explain the evidence.

You may have quoted him correctly, and Steinhardt's cyclic models may not be past complet, but it was an incomplete response, because I also quoted him. Actually, none of these scientific works nor the selective answer the most important question.

Regardless,we are dealing with whether universes have a beginning,or not, because the authors of bgv theorem, Steinhardt, Hawking and all the other Cosmologists and physicists are in agreement and consider the beginning of universes are from preexisting energy in the multiverse or the greater cosmos.

Again, again and again . . . the beginning of universes is not the issue here. It is whether there is any evidence for the beginning of our physical existence, and no there is not any evidence to justify an absolute beginning of anything.

There are numerous questions and misinformation you have refused to respond to.

Still waiting . . .
 
Last edited:
Top