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

[Xavier2024]

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

Answered this above: "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." We know matter is not eternal because of its finite age, the same way we know you or I are not eternal, nor are houses, nor is the Earth etc. All these are of finite age and therefore began to exist. Let me give 3 proofs of Premise I:

Proofs of Premise I

1.1 The Proof from Science: As I mentioned, when the apple fell on Sir Isaac's head, he knew that event had a cause. If Atheists were right in denying premise 1, why couldn't he have denied such and similar events ever needed a cause? To deny effects require their own proper cause would be the denial of and the end of all science, because science works to discern the underlying causes behind how things work.

1.2 The Proof from Logic: If universes could pop into being uncaused, then why can't horses and houses and everything else also pop into being uncaused? Logically, when we see something, we reason and reflect philosophically over its cause, and try to understand what happened and why it happened or what caused it to happen as it did. It could be Agent Causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation or Event Causation or https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-07165-4_4 some such thing.

1.3 Atheism is worse than Magic: At least with Magic, when a Magician attempts to pull a rabbit out of an empty hat, at least you have the magician and the hat! But, according to Atheism, the rabbit could have just supposedly begun to exist without any cause - no magic, no hat, no magician or any such thing needed! All this is clearly and self-evidently false, we know things don't happen in that way.

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.

I gave three proofs of Premise 2. I will just recap them below.

Proofs of Premise 2:

2.1 The Big Bang Theory. (btw, the singularity is what happens to our equations when we extrapolate backward in time. It does not mean the Universe itself was a singularity. Next, if it was, we know the Universe did not exist 20 billion or 60 billion years ago. Thus, it is of finite age and began to exist.)
2.2 The BGV Theorem.
2.3 The impossibility of actual infinites, especially forming them by successive addition.

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.

I will let Dr. Craig answer this one:

"Conclusion

On the basis, therefore, of both philosophical and scientific evidence, we have good grounds for believing that the universe began to exist. It therefore follows that the universe has a cause of its beginning.

What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we've seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy."

From: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument In brief, the Universe is the totality of matter across all of space-time. The Cause of the Universe therefore transcends it.

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

Disagree. We deduce all kinds of things about the beginning and the initial conditions of the universe, including things we clearly have not observed directly. So what do you mean by indirectly observe. And if by indirectly observe you mean we can know about Causes by studying their effects, as we know a murderer from his crime scene, then we answer that we can know about the Cause of the Universe in the same way.

God Bless.

[Sargon The Grape]

If the Universe had a beginning

I am going to ignore everything else in the first segment, because it depends on this very huge "if." We know the current expansion of the universe had a starting point. That is not the same as saying it's when the universe began.

I gave three proofs of Premise 2. I will just recap them below.

Proofs of Premise 2:

2.1 The Big Bang Theory. (btw, the singularity is what happens to our equations when we extrapolate backward in time. It does not mean the Universe itself was a singularity.

It also doesn't mean God was sitting there building a universe-sized nuke. The difference is I am citing science while you are citing a book of fables. Science can change and correct itself. Your book of fables has always been demonstrably wrong about absolutely everything, and always will be unless someone decides to re-write it.

Next, if it was, we know the Universe did not exist 20 billion or 60 billion years ago. Thus, it is of finite age and began to exist.)

We know roughly when the observable universe began expanding, and we call this its age. This is no different than identifying a human's age by the time their cells began dividing; however, the matter you are made of existed long before you did. Similarly, it is not known how, when, or even if matter and energy came into being. There is certainly no reason to believe your imaginary friend was their maker.

I will let Dr. Craig

Who is not a scientist or mathematician of any kind, and whose opinion therefore has no relevance to this discussion.

We deduce all kinds of things about the beginning and the initial conditions of the universe, including things we clearly have not observed directly.

Brilliant deduction, Sherlock, I never said anything to contradict that.

So what do you mean by indirectly observe. And if by indirectly observe you mean we can know about Causes by studying their effects, as we know a murderer from his crime scene, then we answer that we can know about the Cause of the Universe in the same way.

Yes, we could know about the cause of the universe if we did, in fact, have any way to observe it. What you have conveniently ignored, and which I already brought up, is that there is no such evidence of that cause, or if one even exists. But matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known means, and we have no reason to believe they ever were created.

One last thing. You have failed to consider or disprove any alternatives to God. As I mentioned earlier, "almighty power" is not defined, and it has not been established that this undefined thing is the only way to create from nothing. This is why even most philosophers don't take KCA seriously.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They believe in magic. Makes their grasp of science ludicrous.

[Xavier2024]

We know the current expansion of the universe had a starting point. That is not the same as saying it's when the universe began.

This is like saying we know a line had a starting point, but we don't know if it began. If it had a starting point, it began. If if never began, it would have no starting point. Answer this question: what existed 100 billion years ago, according to you?

It also doesn't mean God was sitting there building a universe-sized nuke. The difference is I am citing science while you are citing a book of fables. Science can change and correct itself. Your book of fables has always been demonstrably wrong about absolutely everything, and always will be unless someone decides to re-write it.

The series of causes must end in a first cause, because an infinite regress is impossible. I haven't appealed to the Bible, only Philosophy, Science and Logic; although Fr. Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest, and his Big Bang Theory is consistent with Genesis in saying the universe came into existence.

We know roughly when the observable universe began expanding, and we call this its age. This is no different than identifying a human's age by the time their cells began dividing; however, the matter you are made of existed long before you did. Similarly, it is not known how, when, or even if matter and energy came into being. There is certainly no reason to believe your imaginary friend was their maker.

Did you read the BGV Theorem? "any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary." It is just not a question of us "calling this its age", but the universe only is that old. It did not exist 100 bn years now, it now does, hence something or Someone caused it to exist. As for us human beings, we did not exist as individual persons before conception.

Yes, we could know about the cause of the universe if we did, in fact, have any way to observe it. What you have conveniently ignored, and which I already brought up, is that there is no such evidence of that cause, or if one even exists. But matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known means, and we have no reason to believe they ever were created.

It follows from Kalam, and the logical impossibility of an infinite regress. If that doesn't convince you, fine. Maybe other arguments will, maybe they will not. But the premises of the Kalam are solid and, at the least, more plausible than their denial. It won't do for Atheists just to deny premises and establish none of their own. Atheists also have to explain the grounds for their worldview and what they think confirms it.

One last thing. You have failed to consider or disprove any alternatives to God. As I mentioned earlier, "almighty power" is not defined, and it has not been established that this undefined thing is the only way to create from nothing. This is why even most philosophers don't take KCA seriously.

The more one can create from less, the more powerful one is. Therefore, when one create almost everything from absolutely nothing, the limit of one's power tends to infinity. I think it's a reasonable deduction. If Atheists think otherwise, why don't one of you pls create just one Apple for me, out of nothing? You can't, it exceeds the limits of our finite power. You can create apple juice from that apple of course, but that's not creation out of nothing. The closest analogy we have is conceiving something that does not yet exist. Traditional theology has always held that God conceived the Universe and then created it out of nothing.

As to your last sentence: "According to Michael Martin, the cosmological arguments presented by Craig, Bruce Reichenbach, and Richard Swinburne are "among the most sophisticated and well-argued in contemporary theological philosophy".[5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

God Bless.

[Sargon The Grape]

This is like saying we know a line had a starting point, but we don't know if it began.

No, it's really not. We know many ways a line can be created or destroyed.

The series of causes must end in a first cause, because an infinite regress is impossible.

You don't know that, and you shouldn't pretend that you do.

It did not exist 100 bn years now

Matter and energy necessarily did. There is a model that allows this, and you could have figured that out by now if you had taken the time to consider alternatives to Imaginary Friend Theory.

No, I'm not going to name the alternatives. None of them are proven, either, and it's not my job to help you improve your argument.

But the premises of the Kalam are solid and, at the least, more plausible than their denial.

It's an argument so inane that it could only have been thought up by a philosopher.

It won't do for Atheists just to deny premises and establish none of their own. Atheists also have to explain the grounds for their worldview and what they think confirms it.

"Atheists" don't have a worldview. Atheism is lack of belief in deities. And I don't have to establish any premises. I don't have to have a better explanation to say that yours doesn't make sense. "I don't know" is a valid position to take in science, and "you don't know, either" is a valid argument to make.

The more one can create from less, the more powerful one is. Therefore, when one create almost everything from absolutely nothing, the limit of one's power tends to infinity. I think it's a reasonable deduction. If Atheists think otherwise, why don't one of you pls create just one Apple for me, out of nothing? You can't, it exceeds the limits of our finite power. You can create apple juice from that apple of course, but that's not creation out of nothing. The closest analogy we have is conceiving something that does not yet exist. Traditional theology has always held that God conceived the Universe and then created it out of nothing.

There is no known mechanism for creating something from nothing. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any known means. If you can't define a mechanism for creation, then the almighty power behind your creation theory is undefined by default. You can argue this point until you're blue in the face, but it will not change this fact.

As to your last sentence: "According to Michael Martin, the cosmological arguments presented by Craig, Bruce Reichenbach, and Richard Swinburne are "among the most sophisticated and well-argued in contemporary theological philosophy".[5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

I claim that most philosophers don't take it seriously, and your response is to find one dude who does?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

HEY! Follow the fuckin' script they presume you have, atheists!

[Sargon The Grape]

HEY! Follow the fuckin' script they presume you have, atheists!

It just makes me scratch my head every time Kalam gets posted. Do apologists really think we've never seen it before? You can literally do a google search for debunking Kalam and get thousands of hits. It's such a tired, overused argument that refuting it is practically a rite of passage for any skeptic.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"GOTCHA!!!" is the only plan for fundies.

Dear Currently Posting Fundy. Give up, you're not smart enough.

[Sargon The Grape]

I'm waiting to see if he'll post the "good without God" argument before he gets banned. I know it's coming, I can see him chomping at the bit to get it out of his system.