Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Zatoichi]

I honestly don't see any reason why the argument could make any sense given what we know about the natural universe.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.
Total amount of energy in the universe is 0.
There is no real beginning and ending to anything in existence. What exists today here on Earth was once star stuff, so for me to say I had a beginning is not entirely true. The form my atoms take now had a beginning but the atoms I am made of have been a part of countless other forms. The atoms I was born with are no longer part of my body, so the me that exists today is made of entirely different set of atoms, even though the entity of 'I' still exist, so I am not strictly just the atoms I am made of. And the person of 'I' am not an abstract concept, rather I am a process of matter and energy, operating on borrowed atoms that will one day comprise some other temporary form.

The entire Kalam argument assumes something that can neither be proven nor have we any reason to think ever was: nothing. We live in a universe filled with something... stuff which is balanced energy-wise to equal zero net energy, so the nothing they imagine IS the something that we see. There is no example of nothing, which by definition, does not exist and things which do not exist, well... do not fucking exist, so there is no point in discussing them as if they we're part of reality.

It turns out that the universe not existing is irrational and impossible. There may have been a big bang type event but I see it not as a beginning to existence, rather the start of a different form of existence, just like I was born but am made of stuff that was once something else. Everything else in the entire natural world is cyclical... a Yin Yang... a snake eating it's tail (some of the ancients, I think, understood a bit more than we think about the true nature of the world).

So if it's logical for Theists to believe something like a God could have always existed, then there is no reason something else, like the universe, too can have always existed, even if in a different form than what we see now. Something indeed had to cause the BB and since all things that exist are made of things that were once in a different state or form, the same probably holds true for the Universe. The most obvious truth and inescapable law of the material Universe is that nothing lasts and nothing stays the same. It's all dynamic, cyclical and ever transitioning. Absolute beginnings and endings are completely incomparable with objective reality as nothing we know of has such capability.

To demand that all things must have a cause, then to exclude God from being caused is in itself, both the argument and counter-argument all in one sentence. It's a snake giving birth to itself rather than eating it's own tail. It's a complete misconception of reality... not even remotely logical or intuitive.

Existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed states. One cannot come from the other and only one can be true. Since the Universe does indeed exist, then any conceivable state of non-existence has been ruled out as never having been a factor.

So the universe didn't by necessity come from nothing as nothing was never an option.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

His mistake is in assuming that cause and effect always applies to matter. It doesn't. It always applies to time. If matter were to exist without time cause and effect would no longer apply, and a "First Cause" wouldn't be necessary.

Can matter exist without a version of time?  
If there is any motion then there is event in time.  If there is a reoccurring phenomenon like oscillation, vibration, rotation, wave, decay, radiation, an event that can be divided etc then we have a form of time. (To my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong).

Time is relative and can change but is a difficult thing to truly grasp. (for me) :-k

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Argument reads:

Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)

By its own arguments, it means either God doesn't exist or God had to have a cause, making the whole thing counterproductive in "proving" God. Granting this God a special exemption from the argument's own rules is bogus. If God didn't need a cause, then neither does the universe. If the universe does have a cause, it's not necessary that it's a conscious being rather than one of the possibilities from theoretical physics. That whole last paragraph is baseless speculation stated as fact based solely on his religious beliefs.

The rebuttal reads God did not begin to exist but has always existed and therefore is excluded from premise 1.
It is argued that the universe had a beginning:the Big Bang (this is a flawed concept IMO, we cannot say if matter and energy were "created" then or if it changed states).

Regarding the conscious being he does provide a reason for his assertion but will have to look it up as I cannot remember what it was.  I was still wrestling with the first argument and not able to absorb so many points all at once. :x

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Zatoichi, very well present post mate.  Thank you for contributing and I would like to copy your post as a firm rebuttal to premise 1. =D>

[Zatoichi]

Zatoichi, very well present post mate.  Thank you for contributing and I would like to copy your post as a firm rebuttal to premise 1. =D>

Thank you for the kind words, and by all means go right ahead.  :)

[Farroc]

His mistake is in assuming that cause and effect always applies to matter. It doesn't. It always applies to time. If matter were to exist without time cause and effect would no longer apply, and a "First Cause" wouldn't be necessary.

Can matter exist without a version of time?  
If there is any motion then there is event in time.  If there is a reoccurring phenomenon like oscillation, vibration, rotation, wave, decay, radiation, an event that can be divided etc then we have a form of time. (To my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong).

I'm not a physicist or anything, and my knowledge of physics is probably no better than yours. This is just my speculation.
But as far as I know, though matter in it's current form might not be able to exist in a timeless state, it's entirely possible for it(as well as antimatter, dark matter, etc) to change form into something which could. As far as I know. For a more through discussion you might wanna come back in about 13 years when I plan to have a PhD in Physics. Hopefully.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's laden with assumptions and a double-standard, as pointed out above by several posters.

Also, having read a couple of Craig's books (The Case for Faith, The Case for Christ), I'm not surprised to find him touting flawed reasoning as "proof".    His books are chockablock with bullshit, too.

[Plu]

The rebuttal reads God did not begin to exist but has always existed and therefore is excluded from premise 1.

But if there's something that can exist without being caused, the argument still breaks down because there's no reason to assume that thing couldn't have been the universe.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

I'm not a physicist or anything, and my knowledge of physics is probably no better than yours. This is just my speculation.
But as far as I know, though matter in it's current form might not be able to exist in a timeless state, it's entirely possible for it(as well as antimatter, dark matter, etc) to change form into something which could. As far as I know. For a more through discussion you might wanna come back in about 13 years when I plan to have a PhD in Physics. Hopefully.

   Good stuff mate.  I agree.

There is more that I have issues with WLCs argument which I will attend to in the near future when time permits.
I am impressed with information that has been provided on this thread already.  All posts have been good and some would be very difficult for a theist to rebut without putting their fingers in their ears and repeat "nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you".

[Teaspoon Shallow]

But if there's something that can exist without being caused, the argument still breaks down because there's no reason to assume that thing couldn't have been the universe.

I agree.  I do not know enough about the big bang (nor does anyone else) to declare it was absolutely the creation of all matter, time and energy.  But this is the argument presented by Craig.  A thoughtful response shot over to Creation Ministries or what ever his site is my aim.

I want to develop a logical argument, being mindful of possible rebuttals (hence the playing devils advocate).

[BarkAtTheMoon]

But if there's something that can exist without being caused, the argument still breaks down because there's no reason to assume that thing couldn't have been the universe.

I agree.  I do not know enough about the big bang (nor does anyone else) to declare it was absolutely the creation of all matter, time and energy.  But this is the argument presented by Craig.  A thoughtful response shot over to Creation Ministries or what ever his site is my aim.

I want to develop a logical argument, being mindful of possible rebuttals (hence the playing devils advocate).

It's much easier to argue against a strawman.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

It's much easier to argue against a strawman.

 

I am not an apologist and have little to no experience in doing that. [-(

One of the problems encountered by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the missed Christopher Hitchens had when debating WLC seemed to be WLC insisting to go first and presenting this argument. Though they had a fair rebuttal for traditional Christian rhetoric, they all failed to address his argument satisfactorily. Allowing WLC to speak with a condescending tone almost mocking them for failure to address his argument.

This is a smart debating tactic and to WLC's credit he employs the same method in most of his debates.  Some find it convincing, others can see through the word games though it is initially difficult.

[Plu]

Though they had a fair rebuttal for traditional Christian rhetoric, they all failed to address his argument satisfactorily.

You mean that WLC thought they did. The only problem with this argument is that it takes some amount of brainpower to understand why it's wrong, which is what makes it so effective. Lots of people can understand the simple argument but not the slightly complexer explanation of why it's wrong.

It's the same reason people flock to creationism and deny evolution; because the former is simple and so are those people.

[Jutter]

The way I see it, the argument basicly translates into:

1) I believe that everything is impossible
2) Abraca fuck dabra magic is more plausible to me, than everything I see being possible.

Normally the fact that something happened/exists would lead me to conclude that it's possible, regardless of whether I understand how. Impossible means that it couldn't happen/exist after all, and thus won't. That the thing with impossiblities... you never encounter any. Mr Graig would like me to use the word impossible wherever I'd normally use possible. We're impossible so his bullshit god must've been involved. All that everything-that-had-a-beginning blabla is just smoke mirrors misdirection and slight of hand.

[the_antithesis]

The way I see it, the argument basicly translates into:

1) I believe that everything is impossible
2) Abraca fuck dabra magic is more plausible to me, than everything I see being possible.

Really? I translate the argument as

1) Science has discovered the reasons behind things so we can no longer attribute them to god
2) The origin of the universe is one area of uncertainty or at least the common bumblefuck idiot on the street doesn't understand it and their eyes tend to glaze over when the science is explained to them
3) So we'll base the "proof" of god in an area where few people understand and don't really want to learn so we can keep using this bullshit argument even if it's completely refuted because morons will not understand and still give us donations.

And it is bullshit.

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.