The Kalam Argument

[Amorphos]

The Kalam Argument

I am not great at physics but here is some logic from chaps I have spoken to that I think make sense…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_Argument

The basic premise is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this First Cause must be God.

Some say that the universe did not have a beginning [is cyclic or what have you], but lets take this argument upon its merits;

What would a first cause be? Lets make a leap first; after the first cause all causes are subsequent and hence of causality. After the first cause there are only derivatives of that, every change and interaction thereafter involves tangents and injectives from secondary sources.

Tangents;
If as the great creator you made a mass of particles and projected them in a given trajectory, that alone is only of your creation. Thereafter the affects of one particle upon another is a tangent [like balls moving around a snooker table] and not of the original directive.

Injectives;
Where you get a collection of particles enough to produce a sun or galaxy of such, then suns and galaxies are injectives, they are manifest from the actions of those largely random collections of particles. This means that the first cause did not contain the design of suns and galaxies within them, such things are random events.

Point1; primacy
even if we had a creation event it is logically primary, if there were a further interventions we would have knowable forces in the universe derived of them, and they would necessarily need to occur at all times and in all events.

Point2; ‘the Occam’s creation event’
To create the universe you only need something which causes particles [mostly photons] to exist [and can have nothing more], nothing more. If an infinite cause then you only need infinity, if a finite cause then god has shrunk somewhat lols and we get the old what cause god scenario.

I’ll stop there for now, but all arguments welcome.




.

[(s)AINT]

It is a rather dull argument. It implies that a god (let us be honest - the Abrahamic god) created everything since the univerise had a beginning.

In debate class you'd get laughed at and get a big fat F+

[Amorphos]

Yea but maybe there is something to the idea of perfection prior to existence [though that too may not be a god], and that is there basis no? not sure how that converts to universe though, perhaps they should think of god as a consciousness and then it doesn’t have to be done with the physical.

[Doge Domenico]

Apparently, there doesnt have to be a first cause because the farther in time you go back, the less the laws of thermodynamics apply. So I've herad people argue.

[Col. Tartleton]

There doesn't need to be a sentient actor for there to be a first cause. Especially when we deal with the mechanisms that may be occurring beyond our ability to know outside of the Universe. For all we know, our universe is a squirt of piss from some extra-universal abomination that upon hitting the 12 dimensional ground splattered outwards in "the big bang" and it is continuing to pool around forming time and space...

I mean we're really limited in determining a cause when we can't see what happened before the cause.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
Page 163
Sherlock Holmes -- A Scandal in Bohemia
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

That statement basically is a "your services are no longer required" to religion.

And in conclusion:

"It is quite a three pipe problem, and I beg that you won't speak to me for fifty minutes."
Sherlock Holmes -- The Red Headed League
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

[Amorphos]

Doge Domenico

Apparently, there doesnt have to be a first cause because the farther in time you go back, the less the laws of thermodynamics apply. So I've herad people argue.

Yea time simply does not occur and hence there is no first cause if there in no time to produce it in. some people have proposed a timeless cause I.e. an infinite one and thence god is that, but they never say why you need more than infinity alone etc.

Col. Tartleton
Ha agree, it certainly is a three pipe problem and the third pipe will not contemplate a god.
.

[Tyelkormo]

There doesn't need to be a sentient actor for there to be a first cause. Especially when we deal with the mechanisms that may be occurring beyond our ability to know outside of the Universe. For all we know, our universe is a squirt of piss from some extra-universal abomination that upon hitting the 12 dimensional ground splattered outwards in "the big bang" and it is continuing to pool around forming time and space...

I mean we're really limited in determining a cause when we can't see what happened before the cause.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
Page 163
Sherlock Holmes -- A Scandal in Bohemia
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

That statement basically is a "your services are no longer required" to religion.

And to 80% of modern science, but hey, that's what you get when you take a 19th century writer as a basis for 21st century epistemology...

[Amorphos]

Tankbuster & Sig, thanks for your interesting replies!

Whichever way it is, I doubt these interactions will all turn out to be basic and independent. I just can't imagine God sitting down and thinking "Okay let me see; electron charge will have to be 1.602*10^-19; Coulomb constant at 8.987...", or a multiverse or some random process doing much the same thing. I think many of those constants are projections of something more basic.

Surely if a mathematician can theorise what should occur under certain circumstances, then god could. To god there may not even be the math, he could be dealing in objective forces rather than metaphor, not forgetting that these are numbers we assign to things, they may not be the original number set?

Now I don’t believe such a god is that of the bible or is even a god as such, but many people are quite happy to speculate that future humans or super alien computers made the universe, or that there is a multiverse [implausible for reasons I set out on my infinity thread] or a hologram based on some ‘information set’ that just ‘out there’ somehow, and these all sound even less likely than if god created it.

…just making a thread on this question.

[Col. Tartleton]

And to 80% of modern science, but hey, that's what you get when you take a 19th century writer as a basis for 21st century epistemology...

It's not science until your problem has evidence to point you towards the theory. Theory without having evidence is a wild speculation. Wild speculation can help you along, but it's not science.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The basic premise is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this First Cause must be God.

No it mustn't.

Kalam Argument debunked?

[Amorphos]

Pontifex Maximus

The basic premise is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this First Cause must be God.
No it mustn't.
Kalam Argument debunked?

Well anyone could make up any assumption on what the first cause is, but if they do then they have to substantiate their argument! They have to say at least what that ‘god’ is, what that term means and how, otherwise they are not making an argument pure and simple.

Secondly they have to show how that continues throughout the progress and development of the universe, if it does then there would be measurable forces involved, evidence?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Either nothing made something for no reason. In effect the laws of physics broke themselves or something made something else for a reason. These are your two options.

[Himster]

Either nothing made something for no reason. In effect the laws of physics broke themselves or something made something else for a reason. These are your two options.

Given that we decidedly dont know, we cant even measure the early universe, it is absurd in the extreme to limit the possibilities to simply the two most popular hypotheses.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Or nothing was made and it just existed


The Kalam argument is basically just an argument from ignorance.

So everything is eternal? But we do know there was a big bang, we do know there was a point when something began.

Given that we decidedly dont know, we cant even measure the early universe, it is absurd in the extreme to limit the possibilities to simply the two most popular hypotheses.

No but that's just it. It's been so simplified. Either nothing made something for no reason, or something made something for a reason. What other alternative is there?

[Jack04]

Either nothing made something for no reason. In effect the laws of physics broke themselves or something made something else for a reason. These are your two options.

The universe may well have zero net energy (http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0605/0605063v3.pdf). Think carefully about what you mean by "something" before completely dismissing the possibility outright.

As I see it, the Kalam has a number of problems (none of which have been satisfactorily answered).

Firstly, the assumption that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. This contradicts modern scientific concensus, specifically with regards to current interpretations of quantum mechanics and (whatever the Kalam's proponents may say) it is by no means the only interpretation that does so. Secondly, as I mention above, the universe appears to have no net energy. In effect, this makes any appeals to our experience extremely questionable, if not entirely invalid (we are not capable of experiencing such events).

Secondly, the assumption that the universe must have had a beginning. The arguments against this, whilst scientific "sounding" are particularly weak. The BGV theorem is made completely irrelevant if one assumes a universe in which both expansion and contraction occur. The appeal to the 2nd law of thermodynamics can be considered equally superfluous. Some cyclic universe "creation" theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology) posit that the 2nd law is actually the mechanism for the coming into existence of the universe. Given sufficient time, equilibrium is reached and the arrow of time ceases to have meaning, at this point travelling "forwards" and "backwards" in time, becomes equally meaningless (which also, incidently causes a lot of problems for any argument about the problem with eternal universes and our coming into existence, time is a very slippery character). So, between those two issues, cyclic universe theories (which are equally possible under the big bang model as point creation theories) are not eliminated, putting into doubt the typical second assertion.

Thirdly, as has been alluded to already elsewhere, there is absolutely no reason why the "prime mover" must be a god, or even anything like a god. Commonly (in the previous thread on this topic) it is asserted that the only objects that can exist outside of space and time are "minds", which lacks justification. So, even if we accept the first two premises (which, as I point out (and there are other arguments against them, beyond those I've indicated here) aren't particularly solid), we're simply left with a first cause. I'm not even quite sure that's an argument for deism (I'm not sure quite how one can assert that this cause was a deity/supreme being from this argument) let along an argument for religion.

Edit: Also (though this is a matter of personal annoyance) I rather dislike its reference as a "cosmological" argument. It is, if anything, the anti-thesis to the cosmological principle.

[Tankbuster]

As I see it, the Kalam has a number of problems (none of which have been satisfactorily answered).

Essentially, yes.

If all the premises of the Kalam were correct, then the conclusion is logically sound, but the problem is that at this point, we have no reason to accept them apart from our intuitive notions of time, causality, nothingness, beginning, personality, consciousness and intentionality.
Considering our intuitions have been wrong on all sorts of matters since the beginning of time, on subjects far less elusive than the ultimate basis of reality, that seems like a genuine cause of concern.
It also asserts the existence of some problematic concepts, like consciousness that is both immaterial and atemporal, atemporal intentionality and omnipotence. To deduce the existence of these just by ruling out the other possibilities on the basis of intuitive reasoning, needs a thorough and exhaustive demonstration and justification of the premises.

If theists think the current justification for all these assumptions is good enough, good for them. For me, I don't see anything that's remotely good enough, so at this moment all I can say is that for me, the argument is surplus to requirements.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Pontifex Maximus

Well anyone could make up any assumption on what the first cause is, but if they do then they have to substantiate their argument! They have to say at least what that ‘god’ is, what that term means and how, otherwise they are not making an argument pure and simple.

Secondly they have to show how that continues throughout the progress and development of the universe, if it does then there would be measurable forces involved, evidence?

So, in other words, I would have to provide evidence that what they suggest is not happening?

[Manco]

Or nothing was made and it just existed


The Kalam argument is basically just an argument from ignorance.

[Trax]

Either nothing made something for no reason, or something made something for a reason. What other alternative is there?

Colliding branes?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Colliding branes?

Which still doesn't touch upon the initial origin. You've just divided up the same problem into two (or more I guess.)