The Kalam cosmological argument

Thanks for the discussion, kb. Why? Is there anything other than it ruining the argument? They mean: "I'm trying to explain this complicated phenomenon as consisely as possible so I'll just use this word that everybody knows even though it doesn't adequately describe what's going on." It began to exist as we know it, but it wasn't non-existant before that. In Message 110, you wrote: That's a "from". Negative time must exist if your postulating the beginning of the existence of the universe being at T=0 because you have to have a point in time from which it begins from, that is; a point in time where the universe does not exist. And any point in time before zero must be negative. When its analogous to the singularity at the initial conditions of the universe, that's exactly what it means. Sure, the mention of it doesn't. Its the applying of a beginning in time at that point that does.

Are you sure? I thought the Kalam Get-Outta-First-Cause-Free card was the eternal-ness of the god? That it being eternal meant that it, itself, didn't need a cause.

I am sure, just because I claimed my comment was pertinent to the Kalam cosmological argument, doesn't mean it was necessarily in favor of it.Even if there is an eternally existing god, if the universe is eternally existing as well, the Kalam cosmological argument still falls apart.

I meant: Are you sure my point was irrelevant... I didn't read it as in favor of it, but as being, itself, irrelevant. Sure, but that's just denying one of the premises of the argument. Which is fine, you can reject it on that bases... but if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises. And one of those is the universe not being eternal.This lead to the claim that any god postulated would also need a cause, which I rebut with the postulation of an eternal god (which wouldn't require a cause). Then you come in with Occams razor and an eternal universe and say that my point is off topic I'm not seeing the relevance of your point nor how mine is irrelevant. And I don't see how my rebuttal of any god also requiring a cause has been dealt with within the Kalam argument.

No, it's fair enough to attack an argument on the grounds that its premises are untrue or unproven. Indeed, this is the most usual thing that's wrong with arguments. Subtle logical fallacies are actually fairly rare as opposed to the more common problem that the premises were extracted from their proponent's nether orifice.

This sounds accurate to me. As I read William Lane Craig's presentation of the Kalaam argument, when he says the universe "began to exist" he pretty much means that it does not have an infinite past, but has a finite age. Everything that began with the universe or later has a finite age.But not everything necessarily began at all, or has a finite age. For example, God. Or perhaps logical and mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4. God did not "begin to exist", of course. He has always existed. I don't understand your complaint.

Yes; because this is pretty much the way William Lane Craig (WLC) uses the phrase "begin to exist" in his formulation of the Kalaam argument: Oops--I missed this. You are correct. I disagree. Here is a quote used by WLC (emphasis mine): Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Please pardon the brief aside...I find the question of "what is north of the North Pole" in this context an interesting one, and certainly not meaningless.What we lack are meaningful answers.Don't blame the question.

quote:

---

This sounds accurate to me. As I read William Lane Craig's presentation of the Kalaam argument, when he says the universe "began to exist" he pretty much means that it does not have an infinite past, but has a finite age.

---

I can assure you that you are wrong on this point. Craig comes up with his own definition of "beginning" (which has other problems but not the ones of your preferred definition). Indeed, his own arguments for a finite past would contradict an assumption of infinite age for anything, so obviously he is not using your definition, because he would see the problem.

quote:

---

Everything that began with the universe or later has a finite age.

---

Nothing existed before the first moment of time (because there is no "before the first moment of time"), thus with the Kalam argument's assumption of a past finite time EVERYTHING "began to exist" (as you define it) at T=o or later.

quote:

---

But not everything necessarily began at all, or has a finite age. For example, God. Or perhaps logical and mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4.

---

Only if you assume an infinite past. Which contradicts the Kalam argument. If past time is finite, nothing can have existed for any longer than that.

quote:

---

God did not "begin to exist", of course. He has always existed.

---

Under the assumptions and definitions that we are dealing with the Universe has always existed and God "began to exist"...I am sorry that you can't let yourself see the contradiction.

quote:

---

I don't understand your complaint.

---

Of course not, that's the point, You are blatantly contradicting yourself and you can't let yourself see it. You can't just assume that past time is both finite and infinite depending on whether it is convenient to you - not if you are hoping to make anything like a rational argument. But you still do it, and you can't even see it, staring you in the face.

quote:

---

Gott et al, Scientific American, March 1976, p. 65 writes:

​

...the universe began from a state of infinite density...

---

If it had a state of infinite density, then it already existed. This cannot mean a begining of existence.

You're right; I don't see a contradiction in my position. I only see a contradiction for one who denies the possibility of a transcendent God.The universe began at a point in the past. It has a beginning and a finite age.The God of the Bible is a transcendent being, with no beginning and with infinite age. He created the universe and time itself. He is not bound by the time of the universe which He created.I don't see a contradiction in this.

quote:

---

You're right; I don't see a contradiction in my position. I only see a contradiction for one who denies the possibility of a transcendent God.

---

Calling God "transcendant" doesn't give you license for self-contradiction.And the contradiction is really obvious. The age of a thing - any thing - is the amount of time it has existed for. Infinite age is only possible if time is infinite. But the Kalam argument insists that time is finite - in fact it includes a sub-argument that (if it works at all) rules out the possibility of infinite age.

quote:

---

The universe began at a point in the past. It has a beginning and a finite age.

​

The God of the Bible is a transcendent being, with no beginning and with infinite age. He created the universe and time itself. He is not bound by the time of the universe which He created.

---

So you're saying that the Kalam argument is wrong and time is infinite ? Is that your final word ?

quote:

---

I don't see a contradiction in this.

---

That's because you left it out. You can't sweep the contradiction under thee carpet just by ignoring it, though. You are defending an argument that expressly and intentionally rules out the possibility of an infinite past (in the sense that it denies it, not that it successfully disproves it). So how is it possible for anything to be infinitely old unless the Kalam argument is wrong on that point ?

But this means nothing. It is mumbo-jumbo and word salad. The words all have meaning but how you have put them together means nothing?This leads to another step back if this is correct. Where did this god character come from. means nothing. If anything it shows intellectual and philosophical laziness.

Paul's right. You can't say that God has infinite age unless past time is infinite. Moreover, under this formulation you'd have to say that time itself was not something that God created but something that exists independent of him. Finally, you'd run into the principle of sufficient reason. If God existed for an infinite amount of time and then decided to create the universe, why did he decide to create it then and not five minutes earlier or six trillion years later? If prior to that there had been a changeless god sitting about for an infinite amount of time and not creating the universe, then there would be no motive for him to create it at any given point in time.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We have seen a number of attempts to so define the beginning of the universe on such terms as to imply that the universe has always existed AND that it had an absolute beginning in the finite past. Under close examination this refutation of the causal principle (premiss one of the KCA) may be reduced to a mere tautology, e.g. the universe has existed as long as it has existedin effect, for all TIME.One can similarly argue that my own consciousness had a beginningwhether shortly after birth, or at two years of age, or any other arbitrary time along the wayAND that it has always existed, so long as I have been aware. Nevertheless, no one I knowaside from a mysticwould assert that my conscience self has always existed. In the same way the universe can be said to be known finite to observers, and yet have existed for all TIME. The objection is not a very strong one, and presents a false dilemma for the first premiss. (Bear in mind that this example has already considered the objection of fallacy of composition, and is immune because it is merely presented as an analogy.)The fact that the universe did have a finite beginning X number of years ago belies the aforementioned contention. Moreover, current cosmological models including any multi-verse hypothesis, alongside the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, have only reinforced the first premiss of KCA, in that the universe had an absolute beginning, and that there is a causal entity without the known universe. Therefore, no insuperable difficulties have yet been presented contra the first premiss.The question that remains before us is: Is the causal principle invalidated by some other means? Neither radioactive decay nor virtual particles have been shown to be plausible defeaters of the first premiss. So far, it appears that the first premiss is on very strong footing.As to the discussions on time and timelessnessmostly attacking a straw manI will happily deal with that issue as we reach our conclusion. For now, I hope to strengthen the first premiss, which appears to have warded off all challenges thus far.Edited by Shimbabwe, : Squigglies.