The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the argument most commonly used by Christian apologists today goes as follows:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the Universe must have a cause.
This is a logically airtight argument. The first and second premises cannot be refuted, as they are logically correct. We can observe, in our own Universe, that if something begins to exist, there is a cause for its existence. For instance, a star begins to exist when cosmic gas and dust coalesces into a massive proto-stellar ball, which, once nuclear fusion begins, it begins to exist as a star. We also obviously know that the Universe began to exist. The third premise, however, has attempted to be vitiated, but every argument against it has been refuted time and time again.
The argument that the Universe has, in any way, shape, or form, existed eternally is logically impossible. If the Universe existed eternally into the past, that would mean that there are an infinite number of events leading up the the present, thusly, you would never reach the present!
The Penrose-Hawking Theorem states that the mass and spacetime of the Universe must have an initial singularity. Also, the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem states that any universe in a state of cosmic expansion cannot exist eternally into the past and must have a beginning. All this tells us that the Universe did, indeed, have a cause.
This cause of the Universe must itself transcend the Universe and space and time itself, and is not contingent upon these. If it were, it could not create the Universe, as it could not exist wholly apart from it. If it transcends space and time then this cause must be spaceless, and timeless. If this cause is spaceless then it must be immaterial and not physically bound. If it is timeless, then this cause must also be, itself and by its very nature, unaused, beginningless, and unchanging. If this cause exists timelessly that means that it transcends temporality, and therefore can undergo no changes. If it can undergo no changes, then it must be immaterial as material objects are undergoing constant change, especially at the subatomic level. So far we have established that this cause of our Universe must be uncaused, changleless, beginningless, spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.
Secondly, this cause of the Universe cannot be impersonal, as impersonal causes cannot exist eternally without their effects, which would assume the Universe existed eternally, and I've already shown why it can't.
For instance, water freezes at zero degrees centigrade. If the temperature had been zero degrees centigrade from eternity, then any water that was found to exist would have been frozen from eternity. There can exist no point at which the water began to freeze because the temperature has been zero degrees centigrade from eternity therefore any effects must also exist from eternity, such as water being frozen. Therefore, the cause of the Universe must be personal. Since the cause is an eternal cause, it must have the ability to freely choose when to bring about this change or this cause, it must have the freedom of will and, therefore, must be personal.
So, we've established that the Universe cannot be infinite into the past, and must have a cause. We've also established that this cause is by its very nature uncaused, changeless, beginningless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal. In conclusion, we are brought not only to the inevitable beginning of our Universe, but to its personal creator as well.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Interesting read.
Agree that those statements are logical and the "3. Therefore the Universe must have a cause" is just like saying anything happens for a reason just like the first statement in my own opinion.
In the beginning there was only matter, a form of energy in the great void of nothingness and when it came together it created things like stars and planets black holes dust and sand ect . Eventually enough came together that all matter imploded and then exploded in an event we call the big bang this was a cosmic event that was so great and large that all evidence of existence before it was wiped out and transformed.
Eventually a life-form was formed on a gathering of debris while conditions were right and unable to account for things like where it came from they invented gods and eventually a god of gods called God. As things continued to be discovered people who believed in God (a being they in their egotistical way they believed they were modeled after) and they believed God made all things began to believe god made more and more things like the Big Bang and the cosmic event that created the big bang, all things that were believed to have created life whether inadvertently or not were creations of God but when asked a seemingly obvious question, Then what created god? They answered in the begining there was only God. proving they were only asshats but this was ok because this was another invention of these folks called God's devine plan.
You see with this magic power to pull anything out of their asshats they could endlessly argue for anything all logic be damned and anything that did not believe in their God or brought question to the existence of their God was of the devil. another creation they pulled out of their asshats.
The quantum vacuum (gluon field) did not exist prior to the Big Bang. As the Penrose-Hawking theorem states (as it is also written in the article) that all the mass (which includes matter and energy) and spacetime of the Universe must have an initial singularity. Hawking himself states that the Universe had a beginning.
And your point is?
Still waiting on a response to this!
There probably was a cause, however, there is no way of knowing what that cause was, or even if it is relevant to our current existence beyond the fact that it tipped the proverbial domino that started the events that lead up to us.
I want to go on record saying that I do not *once* mention God or any deity in this article. I merely show why the Universe must have a cause and what the traits of this cause must be.
Merely showing that the universe has a cause ? Atheists acknowledge there was a cause. '' I do not *once* mention God or any deity'' ? No,you don't...You just talk about a personal being.
You do realize that Guth,Vilenkin,Hawkins don't believe in a personal being. Like most cosmologists /experts....most of them are non theists
What if existence itself is on a paradoxical loop (the universe destroys and recreates itself in its own destruction).
An oscillating model of the Universe cannot exist firstly, because it is a past-eternal from of the Universe and we've already discovered that the Universe had an *absolute* beginning. And secondly, because Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking have both shown that an oscillating model of the Universe is extremely unstable. On top of that, the mean mass density of the Universe is not powerful enough to stop, let alone reverse the cosmic expansion of the Universe.
Finally, some decent evidence. Good job. I was wondering how educated you were, so I set up a little test there.
So here is another theory: if there are multiple independent dimensions, it is thought that, in the case of a rare collision, enough energy would be released for the universe to come into existence. The dimensions prior to that point need not contain anything or even obey laws of physics prior to that event (hence, they can be without time) and without time, you cannot distinguish beginning from end.
Except there existed no energy before the Big Bang. The Penrose-Hawking theorem states that all the mass (which includes matter and energy, which are constituents of mass) and spacetime of the Universe must have an initial singularity.
Existing without the laws of physics does not necessarily constitute existing non-temporally, or without time: Timelessness. There existed no 4D space prior to the Big Bang, therefore there are no dimensions to collide. This is all about M-theory, which isn't highly supported currently in physics. There are no many theories which support string theory or M-theory.
Also, in the article itself I've shown why this cause, if it is timeless, must also be personal and, therefore, must be endowed with the freedom of the will, the capacity to willingly bring things into a state of existence from nothing.
You are using a philosophical argument with a smattering of physics in an attempt to make it all seem valid. William Lane Craig would be proud. The problem, of course, is that your argument is devoid of any actual evidence and ignores the fallacies of logic it implies as well as asserting positives that are unproven. The Kalam argument has many refutations, I am not going to regurgitate them here, but here is a handy link if you are interested. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
The reality is that we have no idea what anything looked like prior to expansion. There is much we do not know about the universe as we observe it today. You do not get to insert whatever concepts you want when the reality is that we have no idea.
Maybe watch Mr. Krauss briefly explain how a universe could have existed from nothing. Or read his book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs
"Also, in the article itself I've shown why this cause, if it is timeless, must also be personal and, therefore, must be endowed with the freedom of the will, the capacity to willingly bring things into a state of existence from nothing." - "Will" and "bring things into a state of existence" are not coherent concepts outside of time. Will to cause implies a change from one state to another, as does "bring things." These are timebound concepts. There is no way around that.
One would have to assert that the cause of the universe is "outside of time," but that is an incoherent claim. It is incoherent because the notions of cause and effect are themselves definitionally temporal. A cause requires a time during which there would be one state, followed chronologically by a different state - the effect. Yet the claim is that time itself is an effect. O.o That just doesn't hold up, because "effect" itself implies a timeline, which has no referent outside of time. Neither cause nor effect can exist outside of time. If there were a deity or whatever else that "caused" the universe, such cause would by the very essence of the words require time to exist in order to initiate a cause whose effect is the universe. Yet time is itself an inherent property of the universe, so such premises are logically untenable.
Let's suppose a deity exists "outside of time." In that case, time itself would be completely irrelevant to such a being, and this being would be able to change the past just as easily as it could change the future. If you take the Christian narrative, then such a being could retroactively "undo" everyone's sins, rendering the need for a savior moot. Oops...
""Will" and "bring things into a state of existence" are not coherent concepts outside of time."
You have to demonstrate that this is true before asserting that it is true. Which means that you have to demonstrate some sort of logical impossibility between will and timelessness, which there is none. There is no direct conflict between having a will and existing timelessly. The burden is on your here to demonstrate the validity of your claim that these are not coherent concepts outside of time.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Will to cause implies a change from one state to another, as does "bring things." These are timebound concepts. There is no way around that.
There is a way around that. God is timeless sans creation and temporal from the moment of creation onward. You're forgetting that time exists because change is happening, thus, if no change occurs, there is no time. Thusly, if God wanted to create time, all He need to is change. For instance, a man sitting down from eternity-past may freely will to stand up, thus a new temporal effect has arisen from a timeless cause.
"It is incoherent because the notions of cause and effect are themselves definitionally temporal."
This is simply not true. Causal relationships are not time-dependent. Firstly, causality is *meta*physical, meaning it transcends the physical, thusly, it can exist independently of the physical realm.
Take the following example: A ball sitting on a couch cushion will cause a concavity within the couch cushion. Now, if the ball and cushion exist timelessly, does that somehow negate the fact that the ball is causing a concavity within the couch cushion? Even given the timelessness, the ball is still *causing* the concavity within the couch cushion. Therefore, the rest of your objection is moot.
"Let's suppose a deity exists "outside of time." In that case, time itself would be completely irrelevant to such a being..."
I would not grant this idea. Time is not irrelevant to this deity, this deity simply does not reside within a temporal reality.
"There is no direct conflict between having a will and existing timelessly."
You assert elsewhere that the universe began to exist. If we assume a creator, it implies two different states of will: Will to create, and lack of will to create. I assume you do not hold the position that the will to create the universe is eternal, as it would not make sense for a creator to will to create a universe once it had already been created, but if that is your position, then I grant that will itself could be timeless. However, any change in will could not. If we go with that, though, it would seem to imply that the creator does not have free will.
"For instance, a man sitting down from eternity-past may freely will to stand up, thus a new temporal effect has arisen from a timeless cause."
If a man sitting down wills freely to stand up, it means there is a change in will- from willing to sit to willing to stand. The change in will is at least part of the cause, and as you said, "if no change occurs, there is no time." The corollary is, "if there is no time, no change occurs."
"Causal relationships are not time-dependent."
Causal relationships imply that a change has occurred. We have a state where a particular effect did not exist and a different state where the effect did exist. The difference between those states requires time. Without time, no change occurs, so no effect can arise from a cause. This is time dependency.
"A ball sitting on a couch cushion will cause a concavity within the couch cushion."
Not without time. If the concavity did not exist prior to the ball's force, then time is needed because there are two incompatible states represented that require time to reconcile.
"Now, if the ball and cushion exist timelessly, does that somehow negate the fact that the ball is causing a concavity within the couch cushion?"
Yes. "is causing" implies ongoing action, which timelessness rules out. Also, if the concavity effect were eternal, then there has been no change to cause.
"Not without time. If the concavity did not exist prior to the ball's force, then time is needed because there are two incompatible states represented that require time to reconcile."
The ball and cushion are already in a timeless state. Are you seriously trying to assert that the ball, simply because it is timeless, is not causing the concavity within the couch cushion?
"...as it would not make sense for a creator to will to create a universe once it had already been created..."
God can have the will to create timelessly. Upon *acting* on this will to actually instantiate the Universe, God has undergone change and is no longer timeless. Remember, I am a time-relationist. I believe time exists because change is occuring. In the absence of any and all change, there is no time.
"However, any change in will could not. If we go with that, though, it would seem to imply that the creator does not have free will."
I am a time-relationist. All God has to do *is* change his will to create time. Because change is, thus, occurring, time comes into existence. God can refrain from any form of change, thus rendering Him timeless. But, when God wills to change, He creates time and is no longer timeless.
"Causal relationships imply that a change has occurred."
You're conflating the relationship between a cause and its effect with the cause actually instantiating its effect. The relationship between a cause and its effect(s) (a causal relationship) does not depend on time, because causality is *meta*physical, meaning it transcends the physical realm, allowing causality to exist sans the physical.
"The ball and cushion are already in a timeless state. Are you seriously trying to assert that the ball, simply because it is timeless, is not causing the concavity within the couch cushion?"
I am indeed. Absent time, there is no change to be caused, and furthermore "is causing" has no referent outside of time.
However, I'm not saying the ball did not already cause concavity prior to the timeless state, if there is a "prior to a timeless state."
If, on the other hand, your scenario is that the concavity has always existed, then it did not need a cause. Either way, the claim holds. Time is required for a cause to have a subsequent effect.
"God can have the will to create timelessly. Upon *acting* on this will to actually instantiate the Universe, God has undergone change and is no longer timeless."
Only true if the god in this scenario had this 'will to create' eternally prior. If the will itself changed, time would have to pop into existence for that change to occur. Thus there can be no free will absent time.
"You're conflating the relationship between a cause and its effect with the cause actually instantiating its effect. The relationship between a cause and its effect(s) (a causal relationship) does not depend on time, because causality is *meta*physical, meaning it transcends the physical realm, allowing causality to exist sans the physical."
No, I said causal relationships *imply* a change has occurred, and that change (the instantiation in your terms) does require time - regardless of where you conceive of the causal relationship itself.
"If, on the other hand, your scenario is that the concavity has always existed, then it did not need a cause. Either way, the claim holds. Time is required for a cause to have a subsequent effect."
A better way to word it would be that the ball is timelessly (or tenselessly) causing the concavity. My example demonstrates that causal relationships are time-independent. As I reiterate, causality is *meta*physical, rendering it transcendent to the physical realm. Thus, causality is not dependent upon the Universe or its strictures.
"Only true if the god in this scenario had this 'will to create' eternally prior. If the will itself changed, time would have to pop into existence for that change to occur. Thus there can be no free will absent time."
Because God changes, time comes into existence. Again, I am a time-relationist. If God does not change, he remains timeless. If God does change (creates the Universe), he becomes temporal alongside His creation. Free will can exist absent time. There is no logical conflict between free will and timelessness.
"A better way to word it would be that the ball is timelessly (or tenselessly) causing the concavity."
No, that is not a better way. "is (insert any action verb here)" has no meaning outside of time. "Causing" is an action verb. There is no action outside of time.
"If God does change (creates the Universe), he becomes temporal alongside His creation. Free will can exist absent time. There is no logical conflict between free will and timelessness."
But there is. Let's break it down: State 1 = god does not will to create a universe. State 2 = god does will to create a universe.
These two states are incompatible and cannot exist simultaneously. One represents a change for the other.
This god's will presumably is an integral part of god, so god, in your scenario, god *did* undergo a change. Thus, "he becomes temporal," which can only occur with time.
Put another way: Without time, no change can occur. This includes a change in will. As a result, free will is not possible absent time.
"No, that is not a better way. "is (insert any action verb here)" has no meaning outside of time. "Causing" is an action verb. There is no action outside of time."
This is only true if you remove the "timelessly" part from "timelessly causing".
"Put another way: Without time, no change can occur. This includes a change in will. As a result, free will is not possible absent time."
This is not true on my relational view of time. On this view, time only exists if change is occurring. Thus, if God is not undergoing change, He remains timeless. If at any point God chooses to change, He becomes temporal. I would not say that without time, no change can occur. I would say that without change, there is no time. I think we adhere to two different views of time.
"These two states are incompatible and cannot exist simultaneously. One represents a change for the other."
These states aren't existing simultaneously. Sans creation, God is timeless. He may have the will to create, but nothing happens until He acts on His will to physically create the Universe, at which point change is occurring, removing God from His timeless state.
"This is only true if you remove the "timelessly" part from "timelessly causing"."
Quite the opposite. "Timelessly" is precisely what provides the truth to my proposition. Removing that renders it a non-sequitur.
"Thus, if God is not undergoing change, He remains timeless."
But if god's will changes from "no will to create" to "will to create" then god *does* undergo a change, because god's will is by definition a part of god. Obviously, this requires time, as there is a "before" and "after" state with a difference.
"He may have the will to create, but nothing happens until He acts on His will to physically create the Universe, at which point change is occurring, removing God from His timeless state."
Precisely what I was getting at by saying, "Only true if the god in this scenario had this 'will to create' eternally prior. If the will itself changed, time would have to pop into existence for that change to occur."
"But if god's will changes from "no will to create" to "will to create" then god *does* undergo a change..."
Exactly. Thus, he is no longer timeless because change is occurring. This isn't really an objection.
"Exactly. Thus, he is no longer timeless because change is occurring. This isn't really an objection."
Well I'm glad you agree now. I was objecting to your previous assertion that, "There is no logical conflict between free will and timelessness," which I demonstrated must involve change - and therefore time.
Shock of God - "You have to demonstrate that this is true before asserting that it is true."
Funny you would say that, considering we have 3 pages of your assertions, with no demonstrations.
Yes, it would be nice if believers didn't consider themselves as exempt from ever having to explain themselves. At least when they require others to do so.
SoG
"Are you seriously trying to assert that the ball, simply because it is timeless, is not causing the concavity within the couch cushion?"
LoL! Without time, that concavity has always been. In that case there is no "cause".
"God can have the will to create timelessly. Upon *acting* on this will to actually instantiate the Universe, God has undergone change and is no longer timeless."
Wow...
"In the absence of any and all change, there is no time."
Your own claim actually refute most of your other claims.
"God can refrain from any form of change, thus rendering Him timeless. But, when God wills to change, He creates time and is no longer timeless."
You are losing your foothold completely. It is quite simple:
The cause must be prior to the effect. Effects cannot precede causes.
Your trying to find the corners on a billiard ball, convinced that they are there.
"LoL! Without time, that concavity has always been. In that case there is no "cause"."
I would not regard this as true. The ball is timelessly (or tenselessly) causing the concavity in the cushion. As I reiterate (ad nauseum), causality is *meta*physical, rendering it transcendent to the physical realm, which means that causality does not require the physical Universe or its strictures to exist.
"Your own claim actually refute most of your other claims."
I could see where you would think that, but this is simply not true if one adopts a relational view of time, as I do. If God never changes, He remains timeless. If He does change, (because change is occurring) He becomes temporal.
"You are losing your foothold completely. It is quite simple:
The cause must be prior to the effect. Effects cannot precede causes."
I have nowhere asserted or implied that effects can precede their causes, so I don't know why you feel it necessary to point out that obvious fact.
God is *causally* prior to the Universe, not *temporally* prior to the Universe, because there is no time prior to the Universe.
"... is timelessly (or tenselessly) causing ..."
timelessly - causing, self contradictory again (ad nauseum).
"causality is *meta*physical"
This sounds like it is just your own invention. You can talk about the 'metaphysics of causality', but causality is not metaphysical.
"a relational view of time"
This sounds like a made up view to find a way around the inconsistencies in the arguments you want to be true. In other words, your doing a "William Lane Craig".
"I have nowhere asserted or implied that effects can precede their causes, so I don't know why you feel it necessary to point out that obvious fact."
So THAT fact is obvious? Even with a "relational" view of time?
I stated "that obvious fact" to state facts about causality. And it seems you agree?
"timelessly - causing, self contradictory again (ad nauseum)."
Not true. Simply put, the ball has always been causing the concavity, or, the ball is tenselessly causing the concavity in the cushion.
"This sounds like a made up view to find a way around the inconsistencies in the arguments you want to be true. In other words, your doing a "William Lane Craig"."
This would be an opinion. The relational view of time is a philosophical standpoint on time and what it is. It states that time is simply the measure of change, thus, if change is not occurring, there is no time.
"This sounds like it is just your own invention. You can talk about the 'metaphysics of causality', but causality is not metaphysical."
Causality is metaphysical because causality is not constrained to *only* the physical realm. For instance, when J.K. Rowling created Harry Potter, she did not create him from any material. Causality transcends the physical realm, existing independently of it.
Pages