Kalam cosmological argument

Originally posted by C Hess
You know:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

1. and 2. are not known to be true.

[edit]
Not only is 1. not known to be true about particles in the universe (quantum mechanics strongly suggests it is not the case), even if it were the case, it doesn't necessarily follow that the same applies to the universe as a whole.

2. It is not currently known whether or not the universe is of infinite age - depending on how you define 'the universe'. If you define 'universe' as 'all that exists' then the question is whether or not time is infinite.
If time is finite, then although one could conceivably say 'the universe began to exist when time started' it would be incorrect to say that the universe had a cause as causality requires time prior to an event.

Originally posted by C Hess
Particles can pop into existence with no cause at all, or there's no cause that we
can detect? If particles can pop into existence with no cause at all, then that's it!

{Running over to the science forum}

Particles (or more precisely, subatomic particles) popping into existence doesn't mean that an entire universe can pop into existence.

C.Hess:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

Since you posted this under the Spirituality Forum, I assumed there was to be some connection with the God or gods of creation. If not, one can analyze the argument on a purely cosmological basis without reference to divinity. Something as follows:

Ancillary considerations to Premiss 1. above:

Theorem 1. A cause must be distinct from its effect in both time and space. If it is not, then it is indistinguishable from its effect.

Theorem 2. If two things are indistinguishable, then they are not two things; they are one and the same thing.

Ancillary considerations to Premiss 3. above, in light of Theorems 1 & 2:

Theorem 3. If the universe had a cause, then the cause must have been distinct from the universe, in both time and space.

Hypothesis 4. Space and time came into existence when the universe did. 'Prior to the universe' there was no time and therefore no "prior" either. 'Outside the universe' there is no space, and therefore no "outside" either.

Clearly, Hypothesis 4 is incompatible with Theorem 3: if there was no "before the universe" and no "outside the universe", then the cause of the universe could not have been distinct from the universe, since there was no-where and no-when for it to exist distinct from its effect.

Therefore, either:

Conclusion 5. the universe had no cause
or
Conclusion 5' : the universe and it's cause are indistinguishable/identical.

--unless you can show that Hypothesis 4 is false.

Now, if someone wants to dispute Hypothesis 4 and maintain that space and time pre-existed the universe (in order to provide the putative cause of the universe some-where and some-when TO BE distinct from the universe), then we merely shift the locus of the original argument from "... therefore the universe has a cause" to "therefore time and space have a cause (or causes)": i.e., repeat all the theorems and hypotheses substituting "time and space" for "the universe."

Thus: before time, there was no temporally distinct 'when' from which time which could have been caused to come into existence; outside of space there was no spacially distinct 'where' from which space could have been caused to come into existence ....etc. Therefore the cause(s) of space and time cannot have been spacio-temporally distinct from space and time; therefore the same conclusions follow: either space and time were not caused (to come into existence), or their causes are identical with their effects.

Ah, but we're still not done mining this operation: even supposing that it could be proven that the universe HAD a cause, initially, it would require another argument to prove that that cause is still around and still operative. It might have extinguished itself in the moment of efficacy and disappeared/dissipated.

As other respondents here have pointed out, Premiss 1 is also disputable; any single instance (divine or empirical) of something which exists without cause (EDIT: "popping into existence" ) renders the conclusion doubtful (though not formally invalid).

Finally, it is a logical fallacy ("Fallacy of Composition" "Fallacy of Division" technical terms, google if unsure) to argue that what is true of the whole must be true of every part, or v.v. Example: every part of this engine weighs less than 10 kg, therefore the assembled engine weighs less than 10 kg. Pretty obvious, huh? The above argument, that the universe must have a cause because every event within the universe has a cause, commits this fallacy.

I hope to have shown that those two little premises and that one seemingly obvious conclusion conceal a massive load of assumptions and entail a massive load of additional considerations. Gad, what a waffle.... (PS I studied logic at university, this stuff is right up my alley.)

I'll give the last word to Ralph Waldo Emerson: "No one has ever yet had the slightest success in explaining existence."

Originally posted by Suzianne
Particles (or more precisely, subatomic particles) popping into existence doesn't mean that an entire universe can pop into existence.

No, it doesn't. But it does kind of ruin the whole argument.

Originally posted by sonship
Spiritual Forum reply:
God by definition of most thiests or philosophers did not [b]begin to exist.

Any of other reply including this one:
Can you prove something began to exist with no cause ?[/b]

"God by definition of most thiests or philosophers did not begin to exist."
Then god was surely very alone the last zillion of years before creation.
Can you give a biblical ref for your definition? Or is it just a def invented by man?

"Can you prove something began to exist with no cause ?"
I am not the one to prove anything here. You made the statement, not me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Particles (or more precisely, subatomic particles) popping into existence doesn't mean that an entire universe can pop into existence.

Actually the same theory that says particles can pop into and out of existence
says that the same is true of universes, it just happens a lot less often.

Originally posted by C Hess
You know:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

Nothing.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well I object to premise 1 and 2.

There are events with no known cause, and a subset of those that current
theory says probably do have no cause.
And while we cannot say for certain that all events do not have some underlying
cause, we also cannot say for certain that they do.
Thus premise 1 is asserting as fact that which is not known to be tru ...[text shortened]... of the argument which is even more flawed...

Where they attempt to stick god in as the cause.

Excellent reply. Thank you.

Of course I realise that it doesn't follow at all what that cause, if indeed there is a cause,
might be. To me it seems that explaining away the problem using some uncaused
intelligence merely raises an even bigger question, which is why I'd like to find something
simpler. This whole virtual particles deal seem promising. I had no idea science had moved
from theory to observation on that one.

Anyway, thanks for a good reply. 🙂

Originally posted by moonbus
Initially, nothing seems wrong with it; it looks impregnable But "the cause of the universe" is not equivalent to "the God of Scripture"; not unless you already accept the Biblical account of God AS the creator of the universe. If you don't already, then this argument wouldn't do the trick, because the cause of the universe could, logically, be a blind Law o ...[text shortened]... the universe had a cause, or the strong conclusion that God is/was the creator of the universe.

Another good reply.

I think you're raising an interesting point in that the universe is not a "thing" as all things we
can see to have a beginning, and therefore it's not necessarily true that the universe must
have a beginning. I googled on it, and I got another interesting hit similar to this. There the
argument was that since time began with the big bang, it has no meaning outside the
universe (necessarily), and so the universe can't be assumed to have begun in any to us
meaningful sense.

Originally posted by sonship
Since a "Quantum Vacuum" is [b]something in the universe, any popping in and out of existence in a this manner would not be the universe beginning to exist.[/b]

But the universe is ultimately made up of particles, right?

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. and 2. are not known to be true.

[edit]
Not only is 1. not known to be true about particles in the universe (quantum mechanics strongly suggests it is not the case), even if it were the case, it doesn't necessarily follow that the same applies to the universe as a whole.

2. It is not currently known whether or not the universe is of infinite age ...[text shortened]... be incorrect to say that the universe had a cause as causality requires time prior to an event.

Yes, exactly. I think the time issue is the key. Thanks. 🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
Excellent reply. Thank you.

Of course I realise that it doesn't follow at all what that cause, if indeed there is a cause,
might be. To me it seems that explaining away the problem using some uncaused
intelligence merely raises an even bigger question, which is why I'd like to find something
simpler. This whole virtual particles deal seem promising. ...[text shortened]... ience had moved
from theory to observation on that one.

Anyway, thanks for a good reply. 🙂

No science has not moved to observation on that one.

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes, exactly. I think the time issue is the key. Thanks. 🙂

Yes, time is the key. If time is infinite, then so is the universe by the definition "all physical space time".
If time is finite, then it follows that the beginning had no 'before' and therefore no cause.
Now you may take time to be infinite, but define the universe as a subset of that time period, in which case you get multiple universes. But that is merely a naming convention and doesn't change my above statements

Originally posted by C Hess
But the universe is ultimately made up of particles, right?

Ah, there's the rub. Particles are not solid anymore; they're statistical probabilities of a 'charge' within a 'field' these days. Turns out, the universe is mostly nothing waiting for a charge to 'pop' by.

Originally posted by sonship
Since a "Quantum Vacuum" is [b]something in the universe, any popping in and out of existence in a this manner would not be the universe beginning to exist.[/b]

I never said it was. I was referring to premise 1 and showing that it is demonstrably false. Therefore the whole argument is shown to be invalid. Others have done likewise with premise 2 but that is not what I was focusing on.

--- Penguin