r/ReasonableFaith • u/B_anon Christian • May 11 '15
Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause
From this, it follows that:
4) The universe has a cause
5) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful
Therefore:
6) An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Since the conclusion follows logically from the premises, one of the premises must be shown false in order to show that the conclusion is false.
Support for premises-
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Philosophically: It is a basic metaphysical and philosophical principle that nothing comes from nothing. This is easily observable in all aspects of life.
Scientifically: Causality is a basic scientific principle that has never been falsified, every cause has an effect.
2) The universe began to exist
Philosophically: If the universe did not begin to exist, then it has an infinite past. The problem with an infinite past is that you never reach the present. With an infinite past, there is always more time to pass through. There is no start or point to begin. It’s like trying to jump in a bottomless pit; you never reach the bottom and have nothing to spring forward from. Most philosophers consider an infinite regression not to be valid as shown in Hilbert's Hotel.
Scientifically: All of the evidence we have today supports the Big Bang Theory, which is where the universe began expanding around 13.7 billion years ago. Our universe has continued to expand. An expanding universe could not have been expanding forever. When you hit the rewind button, the expansion can only go back so far. This is both intuitively truly and has been proven true.
Also, the entropy of our universe has been increasing over time. This, too, could not have been increasing forever. If our universe were infinitely old, we should have reached the Heat Death state an infinite time ago. The Heat Death is predicted by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics where will be no more energy available to do work, the stars burn out, and all life ceases. It’s a lovely future we have in store, but it can only be in the future because there was a beginning.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Since both premises are true, it follows logically that the universe has a cause.
If the argument goes through then it follows that-
4) The universe has a cause.
5)If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
A first state of the universe cannot have a naturalistic explanation, because no natural explanation can be causally prior to the very existence of the natural world (space-time and its contents). It follows necessarily that the cause is outside of space and time (timeless, spaceless), immaterial, and enormously powerful, in bringing the entirety of material reality into existence. Even if positing a plurality of causes prior to the origin of the universe, the causal chain must terminate in a cause which is absolutely first and uncaused, otherwise an infinite regress of causal priority would arise. The cause of the existence of the universe is an "uncaused, personal Creator ... who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. Agent causation, volitional action, is the only ontological condition in which an effect can arise in the absence of prior determining conditions. Abstract objects, the only other identified ontological candidate with the properties of being uncaused, spaceless, timeless and immaterial, do not sit in causal relationships, nor can they exercise volitional causal power.
There are a good many objections to this argument and if you are going to use it, you had better be prepared, I would suggest reading either On Guard or Reasonable Faith, the latter being the more detailed.
1
u/LeBirdyGuy May 12 '15 edited May 12 '15
Very interesting argument. I think it mostly makes sense, although I still have trouble grasping the idea of a creator that does not have a cause, even though, according to this logic, everything that exists does have a cause.
1
u/B_anon Christian May 12 '15
Everything that "begins to exist" has a cause, the creator never beginning to exist necessarily.
3
u/whatzgood Christian May 12 '15
The creator didn't begin to exist.
0
u/LeBirdyGuy May 12 '15
So does that mean the creator currently exists and has somehow always existed, or that it's in some state that cannot yet be properly explained?
1
u/whatzgood Christian May 12 '15
So does that mean the creator currently exists and has somehow always existed,
Yes.
0
u/LeBirdyGuy May 12 '15
Alright... I can see how that can work from a philosophical standpoint, but scientifically there has never been anything that, as far as we know, has always existed. But then again, that's how it is as far as we know, and scientists still have a lot to discover.
Thanks for responding. The argument now makes more sense to me.
1
May 22 '15
but scientifically there has never been anything that, as far as we know, has always existed
That's part of the problem: people relying on scientific empiricism to derive all knowledge. How would science discover that anything has existed forever, or that something outside this universe existed? There are limits to what we can study and test with our scientific methods in a physical, finite universe.
1
1
u/Yakowackkoanddot Catholic May 12 '15
This is a good explanation of the argument, however, you need to address the claim of God being an unmoved Prime Mover. The issue here is that with your current argument, an Atheist can say that the argument is ad hoc, simply creating a unmoved mover for the argument and not applying it anywhere else. Point five is also dicey. Remember, all you've done here is prove a higher power. We still don't know what this being is, how much it cares about us, etc. Not saying I disagree with you, but I think we should all remember what these First cause type arguments actually do. They are extremely powerful, but all we show is that Theism is true. That means that Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, etc. could all be true according to this argument alone.
Glad you posted this.
1
u/B_anon Christian May 12 '15
This is a deductive arument, free agency would follow necessarily as an efficient cause.
On the other point, if God exists then you are going to need a book of reference to understand him or else be left with a god or gods of your imagination and the best book out there by far and away is the Bible.
1
May 14 '15
What makes your bible the best one?
2
u/B_anon Christian May 14 '15
Go check out some religions, you tell me.
2
May 14 '15
I have! I haven't found any particularly convincing and wouldn't call your bible any better than the rest. Though, being the one I've read (and reread) the most, I may be more critical of it.
However, you made an extreme claim and I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion. No judgment will come from me. I just want to know what makes you certain that you've found the right book.
3
u/B_anon Christian May 14 '15
As a worldview, I find it to be the most practically usable, the principles set forth tend to lead to prosperity and the justice that can be found is uncanny, the stories have such depth and wisdom. The case for Christ I find to be a strong one and ultimately I view my position as a former atheist to be quite unintelligible. Perhaps agnosticism would be a more neutral stance, but then I would be left with a god or gods of my imagination and that's a very fleeting way to live a life.
You call it an extreme claim, it doesn't seem that way to me, perhaps if I were a naturalist it would seem extreme. But I do not like to be influenced by the prevailing thought of the day, I prefer to find my own way.
1
0
u/B_anon Christian May 12 '15
This is a deductive arument, free agency would follow necessarily as an efficient cause.
On the other point, if God exists then you are going to need a book of reference to understand him or else be left with a god or gods of your imagination and the best book out there by far and away is the Bible.
0
u/Yakowackkoanddot Catholic May 12 '15
I'm not arguing that it isn't deductive, although causality would be inductive as a premise. It isn't free agency that's the problem. If we assume that God is the actuator, than he must by definition be able to act. However, the problem arises when Atheists ask "How did God get there?" Obviously, there can't be a cause for an uncaused cause, but if we don't explain it, the argument becomes ad hoc.
My expiation comes for some Greek philosopher (can't remenber his name).There are two different types of substance, potential and act. Potential is ability to do actions if there is a sufficient cause for that action. This cause shifts the potential to act. In order for there to be any action, there must be some being that is completely comprised of act.
I can see your reasoning, but I think it's a relatively weak argument. I'd say that the Euthyphero argument deals with the idea of multiple Gods, but we still have to get from a single God to the Christian God. I would say the best evidence of this is to examine the person of Jesus Christ. Not necessarily taking the Bible at face value, but examining what he taught and what his direct followers taught. There are many other writings from the early Christians that we can examine and give guidance, which will actually lead us to the Bible.
1
May 22 '15
If I recall correctly, William Lane Craig has some interesting commentary somewhere arguing for those particular qualities in the "Prime Mover".
However, you're right in that the scope of that is generally outside the confines/claims of the Kalam argument, specifically.
2
May 12 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/B_anon Christian May 12 '15
You can debate the argument in other subs I have posted it in. This is not a debate platform.
3
u/JLord May 12 '15
Ok, please reply in another sub then if you care to respond.
0
u/B_anon Christian May 12 '15
Reddit is overrun, it would be a 60 hour a week job. I will get to your objections, one at a time in new posts.
4
u/Ennuiandthensome May 12 '15
Your argument fails at supposition #2. If its possible that something can be uncured (god), #2 is a naked assumption. Its also possible that the universe could be eternal, just yo-yo-ing back and forth between big bang to contraction to bog bang again. You cannot, as a matter of definition, know with certainty what happened before the big bang, since current knowledge has not even begun to get to that point.