Kalam Cosmological argument

As per your request, I am starting an applicable thread on the subject of the Kalam Cosmological argument. For those not yet acquainted with the premise of the argument, I shall repost a link that covers the aspect.The brevity of the argument entails: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.htmlWhat personal belief's do the prospective posters maintain? Is a Creator inconsequential to the reality of time/space/matter/energy? Or is a Creator absolutely neccessary for anything to be actual? What is your take on the subject and how have you come to your conclusions?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Is like when Bill Clinton asked define what "is" meant? Alright, for your sake, lets define what existence means, as it relates to us. Existence is matter, space-time, and energy. We won't go into the metaphysical aspects just yet. Does this fair? Matter/time/space/energy? What we know to be absolutely true is that everything comes from something, and we've never witnessed something coming from absolute nothingness. So, if we incorporate what we know with theoretics, perhaps we will be able to uncover some possibilities. For many, many cultures it was long believed that the universe, and matter itself, was eternal. There was no compelling evidence to assume otherwise. That is, until Hubble came along, who noticed that the universe seemed to be expanding. This expansion indicated that it started out as a certain point in space-time and gets bigger as time goes on. After many other experiments, other astronomers and cosmologists disagreed on the Big Bang vs a static model, but, they all conclude that the universe has a definate beginning. So if something began to exist, then what is the cause of inexplicable actuality?What makes the Kalam argument so appealing is that everything that we know exists, only began to exist for a reason. i.e. "it" was the product of procreation, or "it" was a product of the Big Bang.

quote:

---

An actual infinite cannot exist.

---

Its a simple deduction. If you can add or subtract anything, then it isn't an infinite. You can't have infinity + 1 or 2 or 3. And because you were born, there is not an infinite amount of people. That suggests, very powerfully, that an actual infinite does not exist... At least not here on earth, other than on an abstract theorum. i.e. on paper.

quote:

---

An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

---

To grasp the concept, Craig explains that it's important to juxtapose an actual infinite from a potential infinite. An actual infinite is a collection of things having a proper subset which has the same number of members as the original collection itself. In contrast, an actual infinite is not like a potential infinite, which is a collection of every point in time finite, but is growing toward infinity as a limit. In other words, a potential infinite can exist, but an actual infinite as it applies to time/space/matter/energy currently does not exist."What is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically you get self-contradictory answers, unless you impose some wholly arbitrary rules to prevent this. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, who is perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought . . The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."{5} So as I understand the actual infinite, it is simply a conceptual idea; it is not something that exists in reality." -William Lane Craig No, that's the only point that is established. Name me one infinite number of anything? An infinite number of penguins? An infinite number of goats? He's saying, an infinite is only a concept, thus far. We have never seen a never-ending number of anything. And because we can add or subtract to everything, then it couldn't possibly be an infinite number. Therefore, an actual infinite doesn't exist as it relates to matter/time/space/energy.

quote:

---

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

---

I think you misunderstand him. He is aware, and has stated that a potential infinity does exist. The potential is there. In fact, if God exists, then He is infinite. He is the only thing that could be, according to Craig's argument. However, he is arguing that an "actual" infinity does not exist in time/space/matter/energy.Its paradoxical if you view it only by existential means. But he makes a point of distinguishing potential infinites from actual infinites."The second philosophical argument is the argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. This argument is independent of the first. It's claiming that even if an actual infinite can exist, it cannot be formed by successive addition. And this argument goes this way: (2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. (2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. (2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. The first step in the argument, a collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite, is true by the very nature of infinity. You can never get to infinity by addition because you can always add one more. Sometimes this is called the impossibility of counting to infinity, or another way it's referred to is the impossibility of traversing the infinite. Now if the past were infinite, it would be as though someone had claimed to have just finished counting down all the negative numbers ending in "0," and surely this is absurd. If you can't count to infinity, how can you count down from infinity? If you can't traverse an infinite distance by running in one direction, how can you traverse it by simply turning around and running in the opposite direction?" -William Lane Craig

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Hang on, lets tackle one problem first. If want to logically come to a final conclusion, we have to first address the previous issues in order to verify them. But if you want the whole syllabus, I'll post it.------------------------The first premise-----------------------------1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of
its existence.

​

2.The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of
an actual infinite:
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events
is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress
of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the
formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition:
2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is
a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past
events cannot be actually infinite.
2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of
the universe.
2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic
properties of the universe.

​

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.------------------------The first premise-----------------------------------------------------The second premise----------------------------4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then
an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists,
who sans creation is beginningless, changeless,
immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously
powerful and intelligent.
4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a
personal Creator:
4.11 The universe was brought into being either
by a mechanically operating set of necessary and
sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into
being by a mechanically operating set of necessary
and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being
by a personal, free agent.
4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation
is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial,
timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and
intelligent:
4.21 The Creator is uncaused.
4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot
exist. (2.13, 2.23)
4.22 The Creator is beginningless.
4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to
exist. (1)
4.23 The Creator is changeless.
4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes
cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
4.24 The Creator is immaterial.
4.241 Whatever is material involves change on
the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator
is changeless. (4.23)
4.25 The Creator is timeless.
4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does
not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
4.26 The Creator is spaceless.
4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot
be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and
timeless (4.24, 4.25)
4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.
4.271 He brought the universe into being out of
nothing. (3)
4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.
4.281 The initial conditions of the universe
involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points
to intelligent design.

​

5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the
universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless,"
changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and
enormously powerful and intelligent.-----------------------The second premise-----------------------------Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Add italics

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Old fashioned idea of time? Time and space are conjoined. One doesn't exist without the other. So, logically, if the universe began, then time began simultaneously. Are you actually arguing whether or no the universe had a beginning? Are you suggesting that the universe itself is timeless? Again, Einstein noted that space-time is same thing and are not mutualy exclusive, but homologous. That means that whenthe universe (space) began, so did time. So any argument counter to this is rendered moot and ineffectual in that regard.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

The question of "beginning"? What concept stumbles you? I'm not really understanding your objection to the beginning. Do you believe that the universe is eternal or do you believe that it had a beginning, i.e., the Big Bang? I can't really answer your question until you define your objection to "beginning."

quote:

---

4.11 The universe was brought into being either
by a mechanically operating set of necessary and
sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into
being by a mechanically operating set of necessary
and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being
by a personal, free agent.

---

1. What's the problem with this? Either the universe came into being by set of physical laws that came together in such a way as to make it the "right" conditions for life to be actual, or it came by way of a Creator who fashioned it. {4.11}2. The universe could not have come into existence by itself because it didn't even have the potential to become actual. For an action to begin there has to be a cause. If there is no cause, then there is no action. This all said, unless of course, you believe that nothing has the ability to create something. {4.12}3. Therefore, the universe's existence must have come from a free agent that exists outside of the time-space domain. We need not define what the "Agent" is, but only recognize that it could not have come any other way. {4.13}Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I did answer it. We know the universe had a beginning both empirically and philosophically. If the universe had no beginning and was infinite, then you couldn't add to it. You too would be eternal because you are in the universe. But you and I are additions to the affairs of the universe and so is everything else. Therefore, the universe could not be infinite. That's the philosophical aspect.We also know that the universe had a beginning because of observation. If the universe is expanding in any way, then it isn't infinite, because again, you can't add to an infinite. If space itself is expanding, then that's highly indicative that it had a beginning. But even should the Big Bang theory should fail, what doesn't fail is that you can't add to an infinite. Therfore, the universe had to have begun. Because you'd still have to reconcile how something, or this case, everything, comes from nothing. Again, we know that the universe had a beginning. If it didn't, then the earth would be the same age as the universe, because you can't add to an infinite or subtract. stars wouldn't burn out because they'd be eternal. Since we know that the universe had a beginning then everything spawned from nothing, which totally defies logic, or it was created by the one thing that is eternal. There is no other option. Now, again, we don't have to define what that sentience is. We should, however, recognize that it must exist out of necessity. There isn't much to argue. An actual infinte does not exist in the material world, including space-time, and everything can't come from nothing. So the logical deduction is.....?You are not addressing the actual issue here. You are quibbling over semantics instead of presenting your exegesis.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

The only thing metric, or measurable about time that is the abstract and arbitrary concepts of increments that humans have assigned for our own clarity. (i.e. seconds, minutes, hours, etc). But time exists because space could not without it. And matter and energy could not exist without them. So it all coincides and is consolidated into one in essence. What was beyond time-space, no one can truly conceptualize because we are bound by these pesky little laws of physics.But seriously, think about it. Either nothing at all, in the truest sense of word, nothing, must have created everything. Or it was created by the only thing that is eternal. God, the Creator, Purple-flying elephants, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc... Because if the universe has an "end" then it also has a beginning. For you to determine what an "end" is, it only stands in relation to a beginning. Just like light and dark, good and bad, up and down, left and right, port and starboard. The two only exist in relation to one another. They have no meaning apart from one another. Hawkings, "What's north of the North Pole," argument is only validated by something finite, which the earth is. Yes, but again, the earth is finite piece of mass in which one could quantify or even predict where it begins or ends, depending on where you are standing at that particular moment. And as you said about the Big Bang and the Big Crunch, any process that begins has a finite point in where its energy will cease. I do believe that the universe is finite, but that's only because I believe that it has a beginning. Beyond the finite is the infinite, and the infinite is not material. And the material, to me, is mass/energy/time/space. what's beyond that is God. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Okay, I've read and reread Message 4 several times. I think I've answered it properly, but you say that I haven't. So could clarify what you mean and what I'm not answering? There was nothing, then there was everything. "Nothing" doesn't even have the potential to make it actual. Something had to precipitate the action. Why would any pragmatic person dismiss the beginning of time itself as inconsequential? You can only account for Planck's Time, granted, but you only have a few options from which to choose.1. The universe is infinite.
2. The universe spawned from absolute nothingness.
3. The universe was created.Premise one fails because if the universe is infinite, then the Big Bang is proved false and because you can't add to infinity.Premise two fails because never have have the immutable laws of physcis been supplanted. Heck, physics didn't even exist.Therefore, premise three, though not verified 100% is the only attractive solution to the answer. Because spcae can't exist at all without time. Time can't begin after space was already present. How am I not debating in good faith? If its just a "supposed First Cause," then the Big Bang doesn't exist. If it's suposed then the universe isn't 14 billion years old either. Its timeless. And if its timeless, then you must not have been born, but rather existed eternally with the universe because you are an extension of it. You haven't presented any argument. You're just using semantics, presumably to detract from the actual argument. You're neglecting the aspects of the argument.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

What? Everything in the physical universe happens because something else caused it. In fact, name me one thing in the physical universe that happens or exists apart from cause. It may seem unfair to you, but it is the only option left. Something had to be uncaused at some point, and thing has to completely spearate from anything physical. All things in the material universe exist or happen because something caused it.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Actual infinities only exist in the human mind, because you have no demonstrable basis for assuming that they do. An assertion contrary to it would be just that, an assertion. And this is where I stop you because this is where your logic breaks down. The Creator is completely separate from the creation. The potential for a Creator to create the universe was always there and will always be there. No change. Time isn't infinite because space and time are conjoined. One doesn't exist without the other, and because space had a finite beginning, then so did time. Therefore, the point still stands.But maybe someone can come up with an actual theory that makes any sense instead of trying to refute the obvious, which is the necessity of a Creator.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Being that matter or energy cannot exist except in space-time, then the answer is, yes. Matter only exists in relation to the space it encompasses and the time at which it was created or procreated.Now answer my question(s):1. Do you believe that observation supports the Big Bang model?
2. Do you believe that the universe is infinite?And support your answers with a reason. I did answer it. The answer to the question is obvious. Matter can't exist without space and space can't exist without time. Time cannot possibly be infinite, therefore, it had a beginning. If it had a beginning then how can nothing cause everything when nothing doesn't have the potential to cause anything? That means something, I don't care what you want to call it, must be eternal simply by default for the universe to be actual. Does that make sense? Space can't exist at all, WITHOUT time. They're the same thing! So how can space have been present if time wasn't? So what was the First Cause? I assume that you recognize that something caused the universe. That thing can only be separate from energy/matter/space/time. Now connect the dots. The only problem you have with the Kalam argument is that it undermines everything you believe, which is total capriciousness. For however vague you've been concerning your points, I've still manage to gather that you have no counter argument. I think I've more than sufficiently answered your questions logically, logically enough that even a laymen can understand it in principle. You have no leg to stand on.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

You are using conflicting premises. And this is probably why I couldn't understand you, because it makes no sense. If something exists AT the start of time, then there is no time that it could have existed. According the defered experts, it goes back to Planck's Time, which 10 to the -43 seconds after the universe began. That's the singularity. That's the beginning. If the experts can quantify it down to the smallest fraction of time, then isn't that sufficient evidence for you? Something larger and something that isn't composed of matter, energy, space, or time. Its called, GOD. what is your aversion to the concept? Seriously... Pffft!!! I've been saying it all along! And you just cinched your own noose.You know what? I've dismantled your argument. You're just floundering and flailing about at this point. Kalam stands firm.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Neither of those happen without a cause. Everything has a cause. You don't need to ascribe some wholly divine attribute to it. Just recognize that anything that happens is only because something else has inacted upon it. That is a textbook defintion of "cause." Something causes the effect. The effect doesn't just come about all on its own, even if we are incapable of discerning the cause.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

quote:

---

Matter can't exist without space

---

Because where is matter going to go? How can matter exist apart from the space it displaces?

quote:

---

and space can't exist without time.

---

Becasue time and space are conjoined. They are the same exact thing. One doesn't exist without the other. Gravity creates the dimension of time for matter. And its the First Law that recognizes energy conservation. Matter requires the strict observance of the order of cause and effect. Its an intrinsic law. And we see that energy connects to matter, and matter connects to space, and space connects to time. They only exist in relation to one another. I mean, I don't know how much deeper I can assign meaning to it.
Time cannot possibly be infinite,

quote:

---

therefore, it had a beginning.

---

Because an actual infinite does not exist in the physical universe. If you can add to it, then it isn't infinite. As well, observation takes us back to the beginning of time. Have you read my previous posts or are you just playing the Devil's Advocate? I've been going over all of this in great detail. I don't know what else to say, other than, the universe had a definite beginning. Every astrophysicist knows this. I'm not sure why I'm being challenged on it.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

What are you talking about? Matter displaces space. So what is matter going to exist IN? For the sake of the argument, these are very difficult concepts to concieve of. Everything needs a medium to exist in. The law of the universe is something must exist in something else, and nothing contravenes this. All matter has mass and occupies space. Heck, even mass could be considered apart of space.Aside from al of this, something cannot be created from nothing. In the beginning there was nothing but God. Now, this is a belief out of lacking all other theories. But to think that matter could be separate from space, or space from time, doesn't coincide with anything. They all must exist to occur and for anything to make any sense. Again, these are difficult concepts because all we KNOW is energy, matter, space, time.

quote:

---

Becasue time and space are conjoined.

---

Uh, Hawking, Penrose, Feynneman, all seem to agree.Spacetime - Wikipedia The very fact that time began means that it must come to an end. If something begins at all then it was never infinite in the first place. It contradicts what infinity even means. But even supposing that time could began and still trek on for all eternity, the fact that it had a beginning is the most critical aspect of the argument. Because, again, everything that happens is merely a reaction of another action. So, how could nothing act upon something, if something didn't even exist? If it didn't "actually" begin then it didn't actually happen at all. The very fact that there was a singularity, a point in spacetime where there was nothing, then there was something, indicates that it had a beginning. The fact that the universe is measurably moving away from its original point means that it was not infinite. The only way you could get past the argument is to assume that this universe, the one that we live in, is the end of another universe that possibly had a completely different set of physical laws. There really would be no way of accounting for that, be it positive or negative.But as for the universe you live in now, with the laws of physics, nothing makes any sense other than purposeless intent ordained by a Sentient Being able to bring thought into a reality.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15