Kalam Cosmological Argument: Proof of a Single, Transcendent Creator God?

[Sargon The Grape]

Oh hey, it's only the billionth time this has been posted.

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Unsupported. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any known means, only change states.

Premise 2: Now, the Universe began to exist.

Unsupported. There is insufficient evidence to determine if the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is not the beginning, it's just when the universe stopped being a singularity.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Two unsupported premises leading to a faulty conclusion. The universe may not have a cause.

Corollaries: Therefore, a Cause of the Universe exists outside time and space that created the material universe out of nothing.

Even if the conclusion were correct, this corollary does not follow from it. The cause of the universe could exist in a different time and space, and the universe itself formed from the material of said space-time.

The properties of this First Cause that we can deduce

You cannot deduce anything about that which has not been observed, directly or indirectly.

(1) Eternal, as it exists outside time, (2) Omnipresent, as it exists outside space

Time and space are the same thing. That's why people who actually know what they're talking about call it space-time. Also, all matter and energy is eternal since it can neither be created nor destroyed, and existing outside of space-time is the opposite of omnipresence. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere at once at all times; whereas the state of being nowhere at anytime would be called absence.

(3) Almighty, as only an Almighty Power can create ex nihilo or out of nothing.

Another leap in logic. There is insufficient evidence to say if the universe had a beginning at all, much less created from nothing. Even if both of these were true, there are two problems: "almighty power" is not defined, and it has not been established that this undefined thing is the only way to create from nothing. Also, creating from nothing is impossible, as matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states.

[Xavier2024]

Thanks for the responses.

As mentioned, the Big Bang Theory, and the BGV Theorem requires that the Universe had a beginning: "One reason for initial resistance to the Big Bang theory was that, unlike the rival Steady-State hypothesis, it proposed that the universe has a beginning – a proposition that for some had unwelcome religious implications." [(The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, Harrison P (2010)]. If the Universe had a beginning, it came into existence a finite time ago in the past. The law of energy conservation applies within the Universe once it has begun, not to the beginning of the Universe itself. The Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest named Fr. Georges Lemaitre. At the time, some Atheists disliked its implications of a temporal beginning of the Universe because that was too reminiscent of Divine Creation - but today the BBT is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology, and has had repeated empirical confirmation. Even the empirical fact of the universe's expansion, extrapolated backward, shows a beginning of space and time had to have existed.

The other objection of a supposed infinite regress of universes, where universes keep beginning and ending, still does not avoid a space-time beginning. There are two possible responses to this hypothesis. First, that an absolutely infinite collection of things cannot exist in the real world. Second, that even if it could, an absolute infinite cannot be formed by successive addition, and the addition of supposed universe to universe is a collection formed by successive addition. Said differently, if we let Ug={U1,U2,U3 .... Un} where Ug stands for the giga-universe of innumerable invisible universes, n would still be finite. Such a postulate would also seem to violate the scientific principle of Ockham's Razor.

As to why this matters, the answer is simple: because those who believe in and love God and accept Christ as their Savior will go to Heaven according to His Promise and gain Eternal Happiness. Nothing in this life can give us Eternal Happiness, but only temporal, except God alone, because God has designed it that way. We Christians know God exists by many means, also because we've experienced His Presence, answered prayers etc. But those are more or less experiential or internal to us. We therefore have recourse to indisputable scientific facts and external realities to help show you, too, the way to Heaven, so that you too might be happy forever, that's all. We debate over many things that don't bring us anything even if this or that side is right. But if Christians are right, there is Eternal, Infinite Happiness to gain by arriving at the Truth, and loving the Truth and living in accordance with it. God Bless.

[Mr.Obvious]

But if Christians are right, there is Eternal, Infinite Happiness to gain by arriving at the Truth, and loving the Truth and living in accordance with it. God Bless.

Big if there, buddy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The fact that a religious publication says there are religious implications is net zero.

[aitm]

A singularity is a black hole. We have minis and monsters and all between. Just sayin'.

But we don't have just....one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But we don't have just....one.

That was my point as well.

[Blackleaf]

Thanks for the responses.

As mentioned, the Big Bang Theory, and the BGV Theorem requires that the Universe had a beginning: "One reason for initial resistance to the Big Bang theory was that, unlike the rival Steady-State hypothesis, it proposed that the universe has a beginning – a proposition that for some had unwelcome religious implications." [(The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, Harrison P (2010)]. If the Universe had a beginning, it came into existence a finite time ago in the past. The law of energy conservation applies within the Universe once it has begun, not to the beginning of the Universe itself. The Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest named Fr. Georges Lemaitre. At the time, some Atheists disliked its implications of a temporal beginning of the Universe because that was too reminiscent of Divine Creation - but today the BBT is the most widely accepted theory in cosmology, and has had repeated empirical confirmation. Even the empirical fact of the universe's expansion, extrapolated backward, shows a beginning of space and time had to have existed.

Are you even reading our responses? Because it doesn't look like it. How do you even know what atheists thought back then? You're aware that atheists haven't always been accepted by society, right? Hell, we're still not. Many of us keep our atheism to ourselves in fear of backlash, and that was especially true in the past. So how is it you've managed to get their concensus? Source, please. This sounds like the kind of nonsense that people in church make up to strawman their opposition, similar to, "Atheists just hate God and want to sin." It sounds to me like you're trying to rewrite history in your favor, because Christians are the ones who historically (and presently) deny scientific progress. Many still think that the universe is 6,000 years old, which is quite a bit younger than the Big Bang suggests.

More importantly, what does how atheists supposedly felt about the Big Bang in the past have to do with anything? The question is if the Big Bang suggests the universe was created. It doesn't. If you rewind time far enough, you get a singularity, not nothingness. It may not even be possible for nothingness to exist at all.

The other objection of a supposed infinite regress of universes, where universes keep beginning and ending, still does not avoid a space-time beginning. There are two possible responses to this hypothesis. First, that an absolutely infinite collection of things cannot exist in the real world. Second, that even if it could, an absolute infinite cannot be formed by successive addition, and the addition of supposed universe to universe is a collection formed by successive addition. Said differently, if we let Ug={U1,U2,U3 .... Un} where Ug stands for the giga-universe of innumerable invisible universes, n would still be finite. Such a postulate would also seem to violate the scientific principle of Ockham's Razor.

You're making a lot of claims, but not supporting any of them. If infinites are a problem, then I've got bad news for your god. Occam's Razor removes your god, because he explains nothing. He makes things more complicated, not less. I'll show you.

Scenario 1: The universe began with the Big Bang. There was never a time when the universe didn't exist.

Scenario 2: The universe began when a being separate from time somehow decided to create the universe. There was never a time when this being didn't exist.

Which scenario makes the most assumptions? If you're honest, you'll say it's scenario 2.

As to why this matters, the answer is simple: because those who believe in and love God and accept Christ as their Savior will go to Heaven according to His Promise and gain Eternal Happiness. Nothing in this life can give us Eternal Happiness, but only temporal, except God alone, because God has designed it that way. We Christians know God exists by many means, also because we've experienced His Presence, answered prayers etc. But those are more or less experiential or internal to us. We therefore have recourse to indisputable scientific facts and external realities to help show you, too, the way to Heaven, so that you too might be happy forever, that's all. We debate over many things that don't bring us anything even if this or that side is right. But if Christians are right, there is Eternal, Infinite Happiness to gain by arriving at the Truth, and loving the Truth and living in accordance with it. God Bless.

Yeah, sure. Maybe your god blamed us for being in the imperfect state he created us in, then came up with a solution where he'd sacrifice himself to himself to somehow justify our imperfections. And maybe that sacrifice only counts if we believe it happened for some reason. And maybe this god has such a fragile ego that if you don't worship it, you will go to Hell to be tortured for all of eternity.

Ooooooor maybe there is a god who sends people to Hell for believing stupid things without good reason, and atheists go to Heaven for not believing those stupid things. Watch out! Your soul may be in danger of eternal torment!

Now do you see why we can't take you seriously? There are infinite possibilities for what happens after death. Not only is your religion not the only option, but it is one of the more nonsensical religious claims out there. At least other religions are more logically coherent, even if they can't support their claims any better than you can.

[the_antithesis]

As to why this matters, the answer is simple: because those who believe in and love God and accept Christ as their Savior will go to Heaven according to His Promise and gain Eternal Happiness.

None of that is even implied by the kalam cosmological argument.

You are wasting time.

[Sargon The Grape]

[snip]

Irrelevant. Answer my rebuttal.

[Dark Lightning]

I've seen this poster's copy pasta elsewhere. What's the rule here, on spamming?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They have to follow the script. You have to say what they expect you to say, based on their total ignorance of non-believers.

[Xavier2024]

The question is if the Big Bang suggests the universe was created. It doesn't. If you rewind time far enough, you get a singularity, not nothingness. It may not even be possible for nothingness to exist at all.

The Big Bang does suggest the Universe was created, because it leads to a finite age of the Universe. The singularity only shows that our calculations etc break down beyond that point. Given the finite age of the Universe, all you have to do is ask the question, "What existed 15 or 50 billion years ago". Since the Universe by definition is the sum-total of all matter across all of space-time, it clearly follows that the material Universe had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. The same conclusion follows from the BGV Theorem, which I don't think anyone addressed IIRC. That Theorem shows a Universe that is on average expanding as our Universe is must have had an absolute beginning at a temporal point in the past. The very finite size of the Universe also requires the same conclusion of a finite period of expansion etc.

You're making a lot of claims, but not supporting any of them. If infinites are a problem, then I've got bad news for your god. Occam's Razor removes your god, because he explains nothing. He makes things more complicated, not less. I'll show you.

Let's take a look below, but God is not a collection of things, nor was He formed by successive addition of, say, particle to particle. We saw another problem with infinites in the material world above. Following an infinite period of expansion, the size of the universe would be infinite, which it is not. Next, if an infinite time has already passed, the Universe would have suffered heat death long ago. And so absurdity upon absurdity would follow.

Scenario 1: The universe began with the Big Bang. There was never a time when the universe didn't exist.

Scenario 2: The universe began when a being separate from time somehow decided to create the universe. There was never a time when this being didn't exist.

Which scenario makes the most assumptions? If you're honest, you'll say it's scenario 2.

The problem with scenario 1 is it assumes things can begin without a cause, which is the denial of all science and logic. Why didn't Sir Isaac Newton, when the proverbial apple fell on his head, just assume, "Maybe the apple fell on me with no cause/for no reason"? Rather, he tried to discern the underlying cause, applying logic, and thus discovering the law of gravity, causing knowledge and science to progress. Occams Razor does not exclude all causes but only unnecessary ones.

One Cause is necessary to explain the temporal beginning of the Universe. 10 causes are not. I can still postulate 10 if I want, but to postulate more than strictly necessary violates Occams Razor.

Not only is your religion not the only option, but it is one of the more nonsensical religious claims out there. At least other religions are more logically coherent, even if they can't support their claims any better than you can.

There are broadly 3 forms of religion/religious worldviews. (1) Atheism (2) Polytheism (3) Monotheism. Dr. Bill Craig has often argued, and I agree with him, that the Beauty of the Kalam is that it eliminates both (1) and (2). Many believed in multiple gods that begin to exist and cease to exist, the opposite of what the Kalam proves. Some also considered rain and sun and moon and planets to be gods, which we now know scientifically to have begun to exist. So, in brief, not all claims out there are equally probable. The Lord Jehovah, the God of Abraham, some 4000 years ago, distinguished Himself from all pagan/polytheistic multiple gods by revealing there was only One Almighty and Eternal Creator God, consistent with the Kalam. That model has stood the test of time and has had stunning empirical confirmations in cutting edge 20th and 21st century science like the Big Bang Theory and the BGV Theorem. The others have not.

Now within Monotheism, there are 3 options, (1) Judaism (2) Islam (3) Christianity. Christ gave multiple lines of evidence for why it is reasonable to believe He is the Son of God, died for our sins, rose again and is the Promised Messiah, such as fulfilled Messianic Prophecies and the Evidence for His Resurrection, but that's beyond the scope of this thread. Will cover that in future threads. The Kalam shows that of the 10 or so religious claims in the world, and the 3 schools of thought of atheism, polytheism and Monotheism, only Monotheism is credible. It thus excludes multiple options.

God Bless.

[the_antithesis]

Fundamental misunderstanding of cosmology is not the same as understanding it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They're so funny when they parrot that collection of pedos that pretend we have to follow the script they wrote.

Speaking of pedos: "You're known by the company you keep."

[Sargon The Grape]

[snip]

I already explained why these are garbage arguments. Answer my rebuttal.