God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

I adopted the cosmological arguments to provide evidence for the existence of God. My favorite one is the Kalam Cosmological Argument . It like all cosmological arguments is an logical argument that attempts to prove the existence of God from empirical information about the universe, and other means.The most simple form of the modern KCA ie per Dr Craig is as follows;1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence2... The universe began to exist.3... Therefore the universe had a cause to exist.Then the KCA in most forms goes on to describe why the cause for the universe beginning to exist is best described to be 'God'. There are three more premises, but lets see how we do with the first part of this remarkable argument that has never been defeated only challenged.; {>

God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is the source "Proposed New Topic".Adminnemooseus

Please provide proof for your first two statements. I do not accept them a priori.{AbE} In case you rankle at my rejection of your premises, this link provides a description of an phenomenon called "quantum fluctuation" wherein particles appear in a vacuum without any cause.Edited by subbie, : As noted.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You posit: This is supposed to prove your deity exists, eh?And the "cause for existence" for your particular deity is...?Is it turtles all the way down and designers all the way up, or what?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Obviously he will claim that the phrase "began to exist" does not apply to an eternal God.

quote:

---

1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence

​

2... The universe began to exist.

​

3... Therefore the universe had a cause to exist

---

I am going to start with premise 2. An important part of Craig's argument for it is an argument that past time is finite. If something exists for all of past time, does it have a beginning in the sense required for the first premise ? Can it even have a cause ?

I think you can connect the dots, in the sense that your questions are easily answered by replacing the word 'universe' by 'time' on the second point.1...Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence2... Time began to exist.3... Therefore Time had a cause to existEDIT: I have to note that I am not a fan of the KCA, particularly because it is not very appealing to me.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

No, the questions aren't answered simply by replacing "the universe" by "time". Unless, that is, you mean that the revised argument is so obviously absurd that the answer must be "no" in each case.

Ok, I'll rephrase it differently, since your rebutal of what I proposed was very poor on arguments The purpose of the KCA is that at some point something started to exist. Either be it time or space, or the 'universe', etc. It came into existence. This point no2 is usually never really up for debate, since it is farely obvious.Now, the KCA uses a premise, which is the first point: everything that has a beginning has a cause. Meaning something had to cause to to come into existence. This is point no 1, and the one which is usually debated (and rightfully so, since it is, in my opinion, although not undefendable, the weak spot of the KCA)Thus why I consider subbie's argument much more relevant then yours. Unless you are proposing that the universe (or time) never cam into existence, which I would be glad to see your reason for this ...Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Which is exactly where you run into the first problem. "at some point" should actually be "at some point in time". Are you beginning to see the problem now? There is no "point in time" in which the universe did not exist. As you can see, it didn't. Apparently not. It's because there is no point in time in which the universe did not exist. That's the whole problem here.

---

I hunt for the truth

I personally would grant that as being correct. To us, that cause is unknown and may be unknowable. You want to call that great unknown "God".There is another term for not knowing - It's "ignorance". Therefore "ignorance" = "God". Or so seems your line of reasoning.Moose

quote:

---

Ok, I'll rephrase it differently, since your rebutal of what I proposed was very poor on arguments

---

Of course, I don't need arguments to point out that your post did not offer any clear answer to the questions (and certainly not a clear "yes").

quote:

---

The purpose of the KCA is that at some point something started to exist. Either be it time or space, or the 'universe', etc. It came into existence. This point no2 is usually never really up for debate, since it is farely obvious.

---

Then you completely missed my point. While 2) seems intuitively obvious it becomes less so if the universe has always existed !

quote:

---

Thus why I consider subbie's argument much more relevant then yours. Unless you are proposing that the universe (or time) never cam into existence, which I would be glad to see your reason for this ...

---

To say that something "came into existence" implies a prior state when it did not exist. If there is no such prior state then that thing did not "come into existence" - to say otherwise requires that something that has always existed "came into existence".There is a further problem with a "yes" answer - the same argument may be applied to the cause, thus forcing an infinite regress. Thus the argument requires some escape - and any escape other than the one I suggest tends to lead to further problems.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Please provide proof for your first two statements. I do not accept them a priori.{AbE} In case you rankle at my rejection of your premises, this link provides a description of an phenomenon called "quantum fluctuation" wherein particles appear in a vacuum without any cause.
  —subbie

---

First, I don't rankle at any civil, non-insulting rebuttals and never have. Its when someone resorts to juvenile hall like tactics of insulting remarks and attempts to derail my threads that my eyes have a tendency glaze over.Ok you are claiming the first two premises are not valid. The first that nothing begins to exist without a cause is a valid metaphysical assumption. I am really astonished that anyone would challenge premise 1. ie “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”. Lets have a look at three reasons that validate premise 1. I think there are at least three good reasons that substantiate premise one :(1) We have a vast experience of causes and effects. As such, it is rational to believe the first premise of the Cosmological Argument on our own experience alone.(2) Premise one seems to be an intrinsically obvious truth. Certainly one must believe it more rational to believe that nothing will create nothing, than nothing would create something. Such a concept seems to introduce a new kind of “nothing” altogether! If we apply Occam’s Razor, it would be much simpler to imagine that nothing created nothing, rather than that something would come from nothing. To summarize, why believe that something can come from nothing, and even if it could, there is no reason to think that it would.(3) Atheists are fond of asserting that injecting God into the mix will result in the breakdown of the scientific method. If this is so, then it is even truer that the postulation that something occurred for no reason would be harmful to science. I have always thought that science exists for discovery (of truth) and to determine how things work. If we are to declare, “That event happened just because it did”, we are certainly not gaining knowledge of how the universe works! Using the ”God suggestion’ is actually an answer albeit , intrepid one claiming that “it just happened from nothing” is not an real answer by anyone’s standards! To say that something can come from nothing and it came from nothing for no reason is simply the failure of rational thought and analysis.Now for the second premise. I said from the outset that I think the standard model of the big bang is the most accurate model. I came to this conclusion by several ways. One is its the most widely accepted theory by scientists especially 'observational astronomers'. Second it has the math to support it. Third and perhaps most importantly, the SBBM (Standard Big Bang Model)has empirical evidence to support it. None of the competing models can claim a fraction of these quantifiers. That would include your link. Quantum fluctuation, zpe, virtual particles etc all have a cause for its effect as do all quantum events.I hope this reply clarifies my claims a bit.; }> Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Wrong on both counts. We have considerable evidence of uncaused events - have a look at quantum mechanics and radioactive decay - and assuming that because everything in the set has a property that set also has that property commits the logical fallacy of composition. 1. We observe something coming from nothing all the time.
2. If the universe does indeed "begin" it is meaningless to talk about that beginning as a change, or having a cause. Without time you can have change, and you cannot have causes, and time is part of the universe.

quote:

---

Coyote writes; "Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence"
This is supposed to prove your deity exists, eh?
And the "cause for existence" for your particular deity is...?
Is it turtles all the way down and designers all the way up, or what?
  —"Coyote"

---

No ”Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence’ is only the first component of a logical syllogism which does lend credence of Gods existence. Hume and Kant may disagree but the modern version of the KCA addresses those concerns handsomely. Additionally to your turtle remark. God or the cause for the universe to begin to exist had no cause so the turtle stops with god saving us from the 'paradox' or problem of infinite regression.; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein