Evaluation of Kalam cosmological argument

Lars C writes:

I think that second argument is quite a stretch, and I reject premise 2 and the conclusion (3). There are major logical issues with it. I think creation, power and existence is dependent on space, time and matter. I don't think it's possible to create something from nothing, without pre-existing matter. Immaterial is the same as nothing. The name God is given for what is basically non-existence. We have no evidence for such a thing. It makes no sense in my opinion. It seems to have way too many assumptions about what the cause is, so insert Ockham's razor.

Shawn writes:

It is based on the logical premise that every created thing has a beginning. Think contingency. 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Shawn]

The fallacy is the false premise, to wit: the universe (metaphysical definition is everything that exists) was created. That is the weak link in the statement. Of course, it is possible to construct a logically valid syllogism using false premises, but I don’t think that was the intent here. I understood you were looking for a correct conclusion. If you want me to explain this, let me know.

account no longer exists writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Your response is  equivocation, and it's incorrect. "The universe", in arguments like the Kalam, is not the "metaphysical universe" (everything that exists), but is specifically defined in all formations of such arguments, as the "physical and sequential processes", or in the case of the modern formation of the argument, specifically space, matter and time. 

To understand their argument better in your case, you should read it as

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause that is not itself.

2) Matter, energy and space began to exist .

3) Space, matter and energy has a cause other than space, matter and energy.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Premise 2 fails for the same reason I originally mentioned. Energy, for example, changes form but never goes out of existence. I can't accept the statement these three things "began to exist" with some defintions and evidence. 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Well, if you can't accept it, that's fine. Clearly those who argue this argue the argument do accept it, or they wouldn't be arguing the argument lol.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say "energy, for example, changes form but never goes out of existence." Nowhere does the argument state anything about things going out of existence, but things that begin to exist. 

Matter and energy are the same thing (as proven through special relativity, energy and can be calculated by the density of matter times the speed of light squared), that is more accurately stated, matter is converted into energy. In other words, energy is contingent upon matter. No matter, no energy, therefore energy did not exist when matter did not exist. IE fusion of hydrogen atoms of the sun create energy in the form of heat, or electrons escaping from the nucleus of an atom creates electricity etc, according to people who are interested in those sort of things...

The premises simply aren't that controversial at all, it's just that many people hate the conclusion for emotional reasons so try really hard to argue against at least one of them.

Once again, the argument is valid. However, you can contend the soundness of any argument if you want to bad enough, no matter how airtight it is.

Supporting citations:

1) Matter had a beginning:  CERN: https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

2) Borde Guthe Vilenken Theorem (Mathematical theorem that the universe cannot be past-eternal based on everything we currently understand scientifically) explained by Alexander Vilenken: https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe "The Beginning of the Universe"

3) That matter and energy are the same or byproducts of each other (which is, or at least should have been an uncontroversial point): https://archive.org/details/edexceligcsephys0000wool per https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

"In physics, energy is a property of matter and space."

4) When the first components of matter began to exist: https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

Quark Epoch, from 10–12 seconds to 10–6 seconds after the big bang, quarks began to exist.

 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

It seems to me that at the root of all you wrote is the well-known argument usually presented for God’s existence, but restated to fit the discussion here is: Since everything in the universe requires a cause, the universe itself must have a cause.

This is commonly referred to as the First Cause Argument. I see two fallacies in this argument. 

The first fallacy assumes the universe requires a causal explanation. Thus, to hypothesize a cause as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step: What, then, created the cause in question? Was there an earlier cause? We find ourselves in an infinite regress, and we remain in the same dilemma we intended to solve when hypothesizing a cause as the creator of all things in the first place. 

Yet, if one argues that no one created the cause, that the first cause does not require a cause and has existed eternally, then on what grounds can one deny the universe has existed forever?

Restated: once one grasps the concept of something that always existed, one has overthrown the need for a First Cause to explain all that exists, and we can understand the universe has existed eternally. 

The second fallacy is a more fundamental cognitive error. It is the assumption the universe (all that exists) as a whole requires a causal explanation.

I’ll use Sagan’s definition of the universe for purposes here. When I use the word “universe,” I mean the totality of everything that exists, has existed and ever will exist. The universe includes all matter, energy, black holes, dark matter, and dark energy; all galaxies, stars, planets, and intergalactic space contents.

The universe is the total of all that exists. Therefore, we can explain the emergence of new entities in terms of the actions of entities that already exist. 

Within the universe, all actions presuppose the existence of entities. The emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All casualty presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. It is this truism that I believe leads to the First Cause error.

Let me explain a bit more. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction. If the cause exists, it is part of existence. If it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. 

Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing is not a different kind of something. Nothing is nothing. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence. Existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause outside of existence, before or after it. Yes, the forms of existence may change and evolve. But the fact of existence — not a First Cause — is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual change. 

account no longer exists writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Hey, fascinating topic, so thanks for the counter points. I'm certainly no expert on this subject, but those who argue for the position would probably address your points as follows.
"The first fallacy assumes the universe requires a causal explanation."
-I'm not sure why that is a "fallacy". It either requires 1) a causal explanation, 2) it exists eternally, or 3) it came from absolutely nothing. The argument cites observable evidence to make inference to the first of these 3 options.

"What, then, created the cause in question? "
-Nothing, because the argument is meant to demonstate there is an eternal, first-cause, that is not dependent upon space, matter or energy (that's where they'd say this sounds a lot like God).
Remember, the argument DOES NOT say "everything that exist has a cause", but it states specifically "everything that begins to exist" has a cause, and thus an uncaused and eternal first cause (like God) can be inferred.

"Yet, if one argues that no one created the cause, that the first cause does not require a cause and has existed eternally, then on what grounds can one deny the universe has existed forever?"
-Did you read the citations that I provided? They all explain the grounds you can deny the universe existed forever. On those basis, we can rule out number 2 above ("it exists eternally"). That leaves 1 ("It requires an explanation") or 3 ("It came from absolutely noting"). The argument would then state that since number 3 is logically incoherent and pretty much by far worse than even what could be called magic, it must be number 1. 
By rejecting an eternal universe (space, matter, energy and time) you are left with the options of an immaterial causal explanation, or the idea that universes and only universes pop into existence from nothing.

One can assert the eternality of the universe all they want, but they'd just be going against all observable scientific evidence,  a mathematical theorem, and of course "mainstream" science that I cited from CERN.

"When I use the word “universe,” I mean the totality of everything that exists, has existed and ever will exist."
-Well, that's not what the people who debate the cosmological arguments would define as "the universe", and as I stated. If this definition is true, then if places like heaven and hell, and the angelic realm exist, then this is part of the "universe". Either way, it's not what the people who argue this mean by "universe", so to avoid equivocation you have to use their definition in their argument. If you don't like the word "universe", then the argument would merely state "Since space, matter, energy  had a beginning, then it has a cause that is not space, matter, and energy".

"To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction. If the cause exists, it is part of existence. If it does not exist, it cannot be a cause."
-The argument simply does not demand a cause for all of existence. It demands a cause for things that we can show began to exist.

"Nothing cannot be the cause of something. "
They would agree, and that rules out number 3.

"Causality presupposes existence."
Correct.

"Existence does not presuppose causality."
Correct. But in this argument, existence does presuppose causality, if it's existence began .

"But the fact of existence — not a First Cause — is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual change. "
Wrong,they would say, for the reasons I just explained. All things that can be shown to have begun to exist, require a cause. 
Things like "the first mind", or possible abstract objects like "mathematical laws", "the laws of physics" etc, we cannot show that those kinds of things began to exist. These things that we cannot show began to exists are the candidates as the primary cause for all things the began to exist.

I hope my explanations make sense, as I'm certainly no expert on it, but I've watched a few debates on this topic with some very cocky scientists and a philosopher who explains it well. There's a lot of debates on it on Youtube.

 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

My point is that existence has always existed. Whatever word one might like to use for the metaphycisal universe, pick one that means everything. All the rest, to me, is either sophistry or in error for the simple reason nothing cannot have created the universe because nothing is nothing. For something to have created existence itself, that something had to exist prior to existence. That is impossible.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Correct. Those who would support the argument would agree with everything you just said. Something has existed forever, just not space, matter or energy (because we have observable evidence and a mathematical theorem to the contrary).

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

“Since everything in the universe requires a cause, the universe itself must have a cause.”

That is not the First Cause argument. Dr. Richard, you raised this same critique months ago and I explained that the First Cause argument does not say that all that exists has a cause. The two fallacies you unpack, which attack this straw man, have no force against First Cause arguments.

“once one grasps the concept of something that always existed, one has overthrown the need for a First Cause to explain all that exists, and we can understand the universe has existed eternally.”

First Cause arguments per se do not depend on anything having a beginning. What are probably the most famous first cause arguments in the history of western philosophy (Thomas Aquinas’) argue that even if the world always existed, there would need to be a sustaining cause of its existence here and now. Aristotle, who developed some of the earliest pieces of natural theology in western philosophy, believed that the world is eternal. And he defended a First Cause argument (for a cause here and now of the sustenance of motion. It is called the argument from motion.)

Frankly, it seems you do not read First Cause arguments, but nonetheless decide to critique them and to do so even with the same critique that was refuted months ago. For some sources, Aquinas' first cause arguments are summarized in the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 2, Article 3. (All of the Five Ways are contained in this section.) Aristotle's argument from motion is in Metaphysics, book 12, chapters 6 to 10.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Kaiden]

I think you were wrong then and are wrong now. The word "first" in First cause means, well, shucks, first. The first cause argument asserts that everything we see around us is causal in nature, therefore if one goes up the chain of causality, one will encounter the First Cause. Otherwise, it would not be first. In the context hre, First means the beginning; the outset.

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

I think you...are wrong now.

I stated two things. One, that first cause arguments do not assert that everything has a cause. Two, that first cause arguments do not per se argue that there is a first member in the sense of a beginning member of a temporal series. (I said these things in rebuttal to the fallacies you unpacked). Have you shown me wrong on either of these statements? No.

The word "first" in First cause means, well, shucks, first. 

I don't know what it was I said that you are trying to correct me on. I did not state that the First Cause is not to be understood as the first in a series. I stated that First Cause arguments per se do not have to do with there being a first cause in the sense of a beginning member of a temporal series of causes . Traditional First Cause arguments are arguments that even if the natural world's history extends infinitely into the past, there would need to be a sustaining cause of the natural world at every given moment that it exists. Such a cause would be the terminus of a series, but not of a temporal series that began at some point in the past. That is what I said. Rather than falsifying that , you went and said that some other claim that I didn't make is false, namely, the claim that the first cause is not the first.

By the way, "first" is not meant to be understood in an ordinal sense, which at least seems to be how you think "first" is supposed to be understood. "First cause" is a technical term in scholastic metaphysics and it denotes a cause which is able to impart causal efficacy to other beings without itself needing any causal efficacy imparted to it. A first cause contrasts with a secondary cause. Secondary causes are causes that impart causal efficacy only insofar as they themselves have their causal efficacy derivatively.

As for my statement that First Cause arguments do not assert that everything has a cause, you haven't given evidence that I was wrong. Notice that now, just like months ago, you cite no philosophers who defend First Cause arguments that say that everything has a cause. Well, don't just stand there and say I am wrong. 

 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

I think you are starting too high in the hierachy of the tree of logic and we need to start at the root.

Your cite " www.exploratorium.edu/ori. . . deals with the Big Bang and matter in your body today. However, that is beside the point under discussion. The article, for example, says:  "The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point." 

Two items of importance ring out. First, the author does not define the word "universe." From the context, I gather he means everything that resulted as an effect of the Big Bang. That is a different definition than the metaphysical definition. The second item in that sentence is "every speck of energy jammed into a very tiny point." This sentence drives the question, whence cometh the energy that jammed into that very tiny point? 

The energy so jammed must have existed prior to the Big Bang. And that is precisely my point: existence has always existed. Existence qua existence did not at some time in the past suddenly spring into existence.  

I say that because, as you correctly pointed out, nothing can create something. Let me expand upon that statement.

The question is: Why is there something rather than nothing? Was there a First Cause?

The answer is not as challenging as one might expect.

Metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, is the base of philosophy. I will name two metaphysical concepts, and I ask you to take a moment to consider whether you understand them fully. Initially, you probably believe you do because they appear to be simple concepts. However, if you stay with me for a few minutes, I venture to say you will soon realize you don’t understand them, yet these are the most expansive and most fundamental concepts in the field of metaphysics. 

The two concepts are: something and nothing. 

Focus upon what I am asking and consider these two words in their fullest meaning and application. For the moment, do not try to counter anything I say because if you do, you will not be fully thinking about these two crucial words. Right now, I need your full attention because comprehending these two simple concepts entails substantial thought processes. Once you grasp what I am saying, then you can think about objections and bring them forward.

As I use it here, the concept of “something” applies to every concept in your mind, to the entire content of your consciousness and the total of your knowledge, regardless of the amount or the degree of that knowledge. It is the fundamental concept of consciousness. It marks the start of being conscious.

For example, when a baby opens his eyes and receives his first sensation of sight or sound, all his consciousness can register is that he is aware of something. Of course, he does not know what it is. But the concept of “something” names the first stage of his awareness. The blob of light he perceives is: something. The sound he hears is: something. The blanket he touches is: something.

After this first step of awareness, all the rest of the knowledge the baby may ever acquire will be a process of discovering more and more about what that something is. But that it exists is implicit in his first act of awareness. 

Implicit in the baby’s first awareness is the most crucial concept of philosophy: the concept of “existence.” Awareness of existence begins the process of knowledge and consciousness. If the blob of light does not exist, it is nothing.

Now let me consider the meaning of “nothing.” You are accustomed to using the concept of “nothing” to indicate the absence of specific things. For instance, you may say, “I have nothing in my pocket,” meaning you have no physical objects in your pocket—or, “The amount of my fortune is nothing,” meaning you have no money. 

However, the metaphysical meaning of “nothing” is non-existence, the literal void. Non-existence does not exist. If non-existence existed, then it would not be non-existence. “Nothing” is a concept pertaining exclusively to a relationship. It has meaning only in relation to something. It denotes the absence of something. No-thing means the absence of some-thing. Nothing by itself is nothing.

If you grasp the meaning and the difference of these two concepts, “something” and “nothing,” you have grasped the two broadest fundamentals of philosophy: existence and non-existence.

Nothing is not a different kind of something. It is nothing. To be nothing means: not to exist. 

This line of discussion often leads to the question: Why is there something rather than nothing? 

To exist means: to be something. To be something means: to be something specific, as distinguished from the non-existence of nothing. To be something specific means: to be a thing of a certain kind, of a certain nature, of a certain identity.

The identity of a thing is that which it is — and this brings me to the Law of Identity, which states: that which is, is what it is. A thing is itself. A is A. Not to possess an identity, not to have a nature, not to be anything in particular means: not to be anything, which means: not to exist. To be, is to be something.

The Law of Identity is an axiom because it is so fundamental a proposition that any attempt to deny the Law of Identity requires the use of the Law of Identity. It is the abstract statement of a self-evident truth. 

The concept of “existence” and the concept of “identity,” therefore, cannot be divorced. To be aware of one is to be aware of the other. They can only enter the mind together. They are indivisible, in reality, and in consciousness. To know anything is to know that which is, is what it is. When a scientist asks, “What is it?” he asks, “What is its identity?” When he asks, “Why did this event occur?” or “How can this event be made to occur?” he is asking, “What is the identity of the factors that cause this event’s occurrence?” 

Whenever you hear a challenge to the concepts of “existence,” “consciousness,” or “identity,” remember that any claim to knowledge implies these concepts. These three are the irreducible base of all human thinking. Any attempt to deny them necessarily entails their acceptance and use. 

Existence exists, and this is the abstract statement of a self-evident truth because any attempt to refute it requires accepting the existence of the refutation. 

 

 

 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Well, fair enough if you think I don't understand it. What you narrated seemed to me to be an example Logical Positivism, as though perception of existence through the senses indicates something is "real", which was very popular over a hundred years ago, but very few philosophers today regard with any seriousness except a few naturalistic-atheists.

Either way, I'm simply not arguing for "nothing", at all. Its a big straw man argument, I don't say that to sound mean, but it really is.

My position is (as is anybody who makes the Kalam Argument) is that at least SOMETHING (such as X++)  exists eternally. However, if SOMETHING (such as A,B, and C) began to exist, then they have not existed eternally. If they have not existed eternally, and began to exist, then they have a cause (unless it can pop into existence from nothing).

In this case, A,B and C began to exist.

Not only do we have the observational evidence that space, matter, and energy had a beginning, but the huge breakthrough of the 1990s was the mathematical theorem to go with it. I'm sure you're familiar with the word "theorem" as it pertains to math, but this means it is the hardest form of assertion. In the whole "totem pole" of a statement you can positively assert as being "true", a mathematical theorem is as high as you can get. 

The Borde, Guth, Vilenken Theorem, as explained by Vilenken himself, if the universe is expanding (and it is), and by "universe" he means all the physical things in the universe that are made up of matter, space and energy; then it cannot be past eternal.

In the article I cited, Dr Vilenken cites some of the scientific projects that have attempted to find away to circumvent this (and there have been dozens of such hypothesis), and they fail.

https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

"Loosely speaking, our theorem states that if the universe is, on average, expanding, then its history cannot be indefinitely continued into the past. More precisely, if the average expansion rate is positive along a given world line, or geodesic, then this geodesic must terminate after a finite amount of time. "

So, just to clarify, I am not a philosopher, I am not a scientist, I'm some dude that does computer work and has watched debates for enjoyment, so you may be correct in your criticism that I may not fully understand  the concept of "existence" and "nothing". However, so long as you fully understand that the metaphysical reality did not include space, matter and energy, then whatever ill-conceived notion I may have is irrelevant. 

Remember, those who make this argument are not referring to a metaphysical "universe" (though that definition ALSO makes perfect sense, but is equivocation, because that isn't what is meant in the argument). In this argument the word "universe" can be used, if and only if it refers to all physical reality, and by physical reality we mean that it is composed of things like space, planets, stars, and consist of things like protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, atoms, has a measurable wave function or can be measure in units like mass or density etc, etc etc. Rather I fully understand the nature of existence, or not, all of those things i just enumerated, began to exist.

 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

"However, if SOMETHING (such as A,B, and C) began to exist, then they have not existed eternally. If they have not existed eternally, and began to exist, then they have a cause (unless it can pop into existence from nothing)." What you say here is well stated. The problem is the word"IF." Remove this contingency and reevaluate what you say. 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Ok, well everything in logic is contingent, which is where we get the notion of "soundness". I think that's why we have debates, and in the debates I've seen the evidence for the affirmative (that space matter and energy began to exist) is much stronger than the negative.

All of the negative evidence provided amounts to speculative "maybe someday science will discover something new that will change what we think we know about this. There are some great minds working on it". Well... Maybe. Right now, all evidence that exists, and a mathematical theorem, demonstrate that the second premise is true. It seems we both agree with the first premise (everything that begins to exist has a cause). Therefore, right now, based on all the evidence that actually exists, the most rational position is the conclusion is true.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

I respectfully bvelieve you missed the point.

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

I won't speak for Corhniolion, but I myself am not crystal clear what your point is. Let me take a guess at what your point is, please.

You think that removing the “if…then” connective leaves us with "something began to exist". This is what you want Corhniolio to reevaluate considering your argument that existence exist. It is a necessary, self-evident truth that there has always been something. Consequently, there can not be any cause of there being something.

Does that capture your point? While you take a moment to respond, let me say briefly that if that is your point, then your objection isn’t understanding what Corhniolio is saying. When Corhniolio talks about how “something” began to exist, he is not talking about “something” as in there being anything at all. He isn’t saying that if there being anything at all began, then there is a cause of there being anything at all . Rather, he is talking about “something” as in particular things. He is saying (well, the Kalam is saying) that every particular thing is such that if it began to exist, then it has a cause (everything that begins to exist has a cause, or whatever begins to exist has a cause.)

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Kaiden]

I will expand the whole thing, maybe that will make my point more clear.

Restated, the question presented: Since everything in the universe (existence) requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause? 

This question is commonly referred to as the First Cause argument. I see two fallacies in this argument. 

The first fallacy assumes that if the universe required a causal explanation, presupposing a cause would provide it. This fallacy is of lesser cognitive importance than the second.

Thus, to hypothesize a first “cause” (usually expressed as a god) as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step: Who, then, or what created the First Cause in question? Was there an earlier cause that created the operative cause? This is an infinite regress, and we remain in the same dilemma we intended to solve when hypothesizing a cause of any sort as the creator of existence, i.e., all things. 

Suppose one argues that nothing created the First Cause, that the First Cause itself does not require a cause because the First Cause has existed eternally. In that case, one concedes existence has existed eternally because the First Cause has existed eternally.

Once one grasps the concept of something that has always existed, one has overthrown the need for a cause to explain all that exists.

The second fallacy is a fundamental cognitive error. The error lies in the assumption that existence qua existence, which exists as a whole, the universe, requires a causal explanation.

To be clear, when I use the words “universe” or “existence,”I am referring to the philosophical, metaphysical use of the word, which means existence qua existence. Everything. A slightly restated definition by Carl Sagan of the universe might help for purposes here: the universe (existence) includes all matter, energy, black holes, dark matter, and dark energy; all galaxies, stars, planets, and intergalactic space contents. 

This is the crux of the issue, so, again, to be clear, I mean the totality of everything that exists, has existed, and ever will exist. The universe is the total of all that exists. 

Yes, we can explain the emergence of new entities in terms of the actions of entities that already exist. Within the universe, inside existence, all actions presuppose entities exist to act. The emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All casualty presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. It is this truism that I believe can lead to the First Cause error.
   
Let me expand. To demand a First Cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction. If the cause exists, it is part of existence. If it does not exist, it cannot be a cause—end of story. 

But, it is not the end of story for many people, and I found it necessary to provide a further explanation of what I am saying.

I think we all agree that nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing is not a different kind of something. Nothing is nothing. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence. Existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause outside of existence, before or after it. Yes, the forms of existence may change and evolve. But the fact of existence, existence exists, is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual change. 

Do you want me to expand upon what I mean by “something” and “nothing?”

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Restated, the question presented: Since everything in the universe (existence) requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause? This question is commonly referred to as the First Cause argument. I see two fallacies in this argument. 

You are peddling a caricature that seems to never die, no matter how thoroughly nor often you are corrected, and no matter how thoroughly nor often it is pointed out that you are citing no philosophers who defend what you are calling the “First Cause argument”, and no matter how easily classic and famous formulations of the First Cause argument are made available to you to read.

You are not citing sources to support your belief about what the argument states. You have been cited two classic and famous formulations that falsify your belief about what the argument states. And you apparently chose not to read the passages that I cited for you to inform your belief about what the First Cause argument states. I see. You won’t let your lack of evidence stop you from believing. You won’t let the presentation of falsifying evidence stop you from believing. You won’t read sources that conflict with your belief. 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Kaiden]

You have never specifically what is in error. However, I do not like you tone and this is now ended.

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

You have never specifically what is in error.

The problem is accentuating that you are not paying attention and that you critique things without reading them. I never specified what is in error? Here is the truth. Let me quote myself. “That is not the First Cause argument” Why not? “…the First Cause argument does not say that all that exists has a cause.” I said that to you four days ago.

Here is a second quote from me, making it clear that “I stated two things. One, that first cause arguments do not assert that everything has a cause.” And “As for my statement that First Cause arguments do not assert that everything has a cause, you haven't given evidence that I was wrong…you cite no philosophers who defend First Cause arguments that say that everything has a cause.” I said these things to you three days ago.

And in my latest post, I specified once again that the First Cause argument you presented is a straw man. 

The truth is that I specified the error three times in the past four days. That was an easy enough truth to reach by reading the opening and concluding lines of my posts. Read my posts before saying things like "you have never...". Just like you need to read First Cause arguments before saying things about them . 

I do not like you tone and this is now ended

Before I ever wrote the post whose tone you’re complaining about , I had already specified the error, pointed out that you had no citations to back up your belief, gave my own citations of the Metaphysics and Summa to falsify your belief, and you never read the passages I cited. You can end things now, but everything needed to refute your critique was already established days ago in my posts whose tone you mentioned no problem with, and you still went on believing irrationally that the First Cause argument states that everything has a cause.

Besides, critical thinking does not care whether you like the tone in which I pointed out that you have no citations to back up your belief, in which I gave my own citations of the Metaphysics and Summa to falsify your belief, and in which I said it seemed you never read the passages I cited. As long as it is true that you have no citations to back up your belief, that I gave my own citations of the Metaphysics and Summa to falsify your belief, and that you never read the passages I cited, give up believing that the First Cause argument commits the two fallacies that you accuse it of. Anyways, the fallacies you accuse the First Cause argument of committing were refuted prior to the post whose tone you complained about. Indeed, others on this thread have also specified repeatedly that you are attacking a straw man and the First Cause argument does not state that everything that exists has a cause. Yet you still go on believing. 

I don't like that you hold a belief without evidence and in the face of falsifying evidence, and chose not to read sources that falsify your belief, and pay no heed to all of those who are repeatedly correcting you. That is poor critical thinking. I don't like it when anybody thinks like that. (And that is a "like" that critical thinking does care about.) 

 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Kaiden]

Truth is not a tool for domination. It operates a lot more like love than war. This blog is for people exploring, in good faith, questions of logic. 

I always enjoy when someone whom I respect and who cares about using careful and valid arguments disagrees with me. It is an opportunity for me to correct any mistakes I have made, to deepen my understanding of the topic, or at least tighten up my understandings and beliefs. 

In my opnion, your ad hominem attacks upon me and others disqualifies you.

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

What ad hominem attack? Quote a passage from my posts, please, to show the alleged ad hominem you are talking about. 

You are not exploring questions of logic in good faith. You have been corrected multiple times, have cited no sources to verify your belief, have been cited sources to falsify your belief and seem to chose not to read those sources.

Since you decide to hold onto the belief that the First Cause argument commits those two fallacies without evidence, in the face of falsifying evidence, refuse to read the evidence that falsifies your belief, and pay no attention to the fact that you are being continuously corrected,  you are disqualified from exploring in good faith questions of logic. 

“It is an opportunity for me to correct any mistakes I have made, to deepen my understanding of the topic, or at least tighten up my understandings and beliefs.”

Contrary to this nice picture you paint of yourself, it appears, as I have said once again in the paragraph above, that you reject the opportunity to be corrected and refuse to read the very sources that would tighten up your understanding.

Again, whatever you want to say about me now , let me emphasize that prior to the post whose tone you complained about, everything was established to refute the two fallacies. And other posts besides mine and whose tones you have not complained about have also refuted your fallacies. Disengaging me any further makes no difference to the fact that the two fallacies were already refuted (and yet perhaps, unfortunately, you still believe it commits those fallacies.) 

Monique Z writes:

The universe having a beginning is supported by the big bang theory. Its generally accepted by cosmologist that the universe as we know it had a beginning

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Monique Z]

Not really, that simply pushes the question back to what caused the Big Bang, or changes the definition of universe being all that exists. The problem with the word universe is, like so many other words, it has different meanings depending upon the context. Universe for a statistician is different from that of an astronomer-cosmoligist, and both are different from the metaphysical definition.

Monique Z writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

The thing is nobody is confused about the definition of the universe or when it began except for those intent on denying that the universe could not cause itself to come into existence. The universe is the current spacetime we exist in and it began 13.7 billion years ago. 

It seems that trying to redefine what is meant by the universe is only done as a means to avoid the possibility of a God. 

 You're  shifing the goalposts

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Monique Z]

Unless people define their terms, both conversation and thought are not possible. Language is first a tool of thought (cognition) and secondarily a tool of communication. Restated: if you can't talk straight, you can't think straight. Definitions are critical for a person to know what he is talking about. 

If you don't want to use the word "universe" as Sagan defined it, then tell me a word that you use to mean everything that exists.

Monique Z writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

There's already a perfectly acceptable definition of the universe, and Its been stated many times. Its everything that exists in our current spacetime. Anything that existed before the universe came in to existence 13.7 billion years ago is not a part of our current spacetime. 

 For whatever reason people who don't like the implications that the universe had a beginning seem to want to redefine what the universe is, but science has already established a perfectly acceptable definition supported by observations and calculations. The universe hasnt existed eternally as you claim

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Monique Z]

What word do you use for things "that existed before the universe came in to existence 13.7 billion years ago is not a part of our current spacetime?"

Monique Z writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

You can call it exactly what it is: things that existed before the universe came into existence. 

I'll concende your point for the sake of argument and say before the universe was born, there was a universe, or that everything outside our current spacetime is also a universe. It wouldnt make a difference to the Kalam argument. It still wouldn't be the universe we live in. The universe we live in began 13.7 billion years ago. No matter which way you look at the the universe had a beginning

Monique Z writes:

Also, remember the flaw in the BB theory, that time, space and matter began at the BB, is not quite accurate. It actually means MEASURABLE time, space and matter did not exist, but only because we do not have the tools to measure what went before (and obviously something did, to cause the BB).

It would be impossible to measure what existed before the big bang because nothing would have been able to survive inflation. We also know the space we live in and the matter inside didn't exist because it was created during the inflation period, and in the time after.

Further, we already have an idea of what what existed before the big bang...the singularity. But that state is no longer so it cannot be measured.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

Hi Monique ... agreed - that's all pretty much what I said.

Monique Z writes:
[To Jim]

Hmmm I find your response suspect. Aren't you the same person who insisted "outside the universe" is a logically incoherent concept?

Now you seem to be arguing that there was a state outside of our current spacetime, but that is just isn't measurable by current means.

If you agree that the singularity was a state that existed before the universe was born, then you are agreeing that "outside the universe" is a logically coherent concept. 

Mchasewalker writes:

Nonsense!  It is an important distinction because then it would be an Argument from Contingency which is inherently flawed. Whereas Kalam is valid, the argument from contingency is deeply problematic for numerous reasons.

1. Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.

2. The universe exists contingently.

3. Therefore, the universe has a reason for its existence.

4. If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.

5. Therefore, God exists.

Kaiden writes:

[To Mchasewalker]

It is an important distinction because then it would be an Argument from Contingency

The Kalam argument shares no premises in common with the contingency argument that you posted. Nothing I wrote in my Answer implies that the Kalam argument's premises would all be switched out and replaced with the premises of the contingency argument. You don't so much as defend your claim that my Answer implies such a drastic transformation. I can’t emphasize enough how misconceived your critique is. How on earth is treating an analysis of the cause as part of the argument supposed to imply that the premises of the Kalam up and transform into the premises of the argument from contingency? 

Whereas Kalam is valid, the argument from contingency...

"Whereas" the Kalam is valid? Regarding validity, the Kalam and contingency argument do not contrast. The contingency argument that you posted is valid, too . 3 follows from 1 and 2. 5 follows from 3 and 4. 

account no longer exists writes:

Hi there,

I see this phrase used a lot : "immaterial [cause, mind etc]"

I think it's self-contradictory, as "immaterial" would mean "composed of nothing". Sure, we hear phrases like the "immaterial mind", but we know that this is a highly developed personal subjective experience, wholly dependent on the electro-chemical activity of the brain.

How is the concept of an independently existing immaterial entity even logically possible?

To me, it's self-contradictory, much live talking about a "dead survivor".

account no longer exists writes:

[To Jim]

Well, your position is pretty much just question begging. "Immaterial" and "Composed of nothing" are not synonymous, unless your position is already "There is nothing immaterial, therefore it is nothing". The supporters of this argument would obviously state that the immaterial (something other than matter, energy, and space) has ontological existence, and is as real as you and I.

That's the whole point of the Kalam Argument though, and all contingency and cosmological arguments for that matter. In the Kalam, it argues that if it can be shown that space, matter and energy began to exist, and everything that begins to exist has a cause, then space, matter and energy had a cause (that is not composed of space, matter and energy since nothing can be the cause of itself if it began to exist).

So, no, the proposition that "something exists that is not composed of matter and energy" is not at all the same as a "dead survivor" or a "square-circle".

Literally many of the greatest philosophers, scientists alive and ever to live, believe in abstract objects, that exist apart from the human mind, but have no matter or energy.

Do you believe in things like mathematical laws, laws of physics, logical rules of inference, or things that exist and are true, regardless if human minds existed? Well, many, many people do, and they aren't made of matter, and their existence is not a logical contradiction.

The short answer is no, believing that the immaterial exists, is not a logical contradiction.

 

account no longer exists writes:

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

We need to go back to the original statement for context : "If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful."

Something that is immaterial, creates universes and life would need to exist independently.

You mention immaterial elements like mathematics, but "mathematics" is just a word - meaningless unless it is attached to, or applied to, something material. Just like the colour blue - it too is just a word, immaterial, and is meaningless unless it's attached to, or applied to, something material. What is a blue?

So we get to the concept of an independently existing immaterial (composed of nothing) entity, that, while being composed of nothing, is able to interface with the physical material world. See how nonsensical this now is? 

Now this is a personal opinion, but to me, this shows just how far the human imagination can go, in an attempt to explain what it cannot understand.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Jim]

Mathematics is not "just a word", and the vast number of believers in mathematical abstract objects would point out that we often discover mathematical theorems and principles, and then later discover that natural phenomenon obey them. Therefore mathematics is not merely descriptive, but something we discover, just as we discover things like particles, atoms and elements, and we can often independently verify their connection to natural phenomenon that obey their principles.

Some of these believers in abstract objects (I am not one of them) include some of the greatest mathematical physicists to ever live like Roger Penrose. 

Once again, "immaterial" does not mean it is "composed of nothing". It means it is "composed of something other than matter". When you state that "immaterial" is synonymous with "nothing", that is question begging because nobody who argues for cosmological arguments would agree with that, and you would need to give the reasons as to how you know that "immaterial" = "nothing". 

To the monotheist an immaterial cause of the universe means there's a spiritual realm (which we do not understand) that caused the universe. At the very least, they would state that an immaterial cause of the universe is exactly what we would expect if God exists. 

In respect to the extents of human imagination will go to explain what it cannot understand, have you heard many of the scientific hypothesis that scientific-atheists strongly believe in to support their position. How about things like infinite parallel universes? Sorry, that works both ways. I think if you fully understand the Kalam Argument, you will understand no matter if it is sound or not, something extremely fantastic, way beyond the expectations of atheists from centuries past, ever expected. Remember, for centuries the atheists claimed the universe had no explanation, and up until the time of Einstein (including Einstein ie "The Einstein Universe"), thought the universe was static and eternal, that it pretty much always just existed like it does now.

Lars C writes:

What does something immaterial contain? 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lars C]

How am I supposed to know? All the argument attempts to do is use the logical rules of inference to prove that it must exist. It's deductive, which means it goes from general to specific. It deducts.  It makes precise conclusions by reducing, and ruling things out. The job is not to answer what something immaterial is made out of, only that it exists.

The major thing that can be inferred by this argument is that the first cause is not made of matter. If it's not made of matter, then it's immaterial. 

That's like asking what's beyond the cosmological horizon? Or what was the singularity made out of? Who the heck  knows... That doesn't mean that they don't (or didn't) exist. 

Lars C writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

I don't how you're supposed to know that. The Kalam argument says nothing about what the cause is or the nature of the cause. It doesn't say that the cause is immaterial. It says nothing about the cause.

I'm having a problem with the connection of immaterial and "it". Immaterial: what is "it"?

Is immaterial anything at all?

What's the difference between nothingness/non-existence and immaterial?

I suppose a rule is an example of something immaterial, something we humans have mentally constructed, a mental construct, a concept. A rule has no material existence, but perhaps an imaginary existence, and such can also be the case for God. But the immaterial existence (if existence is the right word to use) of a rule is only found inside the mind of a material brain in a natural world of space, time and matter. Or perhaps the mind is the brain. Since these immaterial concepts are only found inside a physical brain, I don't know how we could demonstrate the existence of anything immaterial outside of a material, physical entity. 

"Existence is the ability of an entity to interact with physical or mental reality."

If this definition of existence (Wikipedia) is the most correct and accurate, then I'm not sure if it makes sense for anything immaterial to interact with anything, either with physical or mental reality. The physical would already have to exist to interact with it, and during the early expansion of the universe there were no beings with any mentality as far as we know. And to interact with something should necessarily require space, time and matter to already exist. If something has no material/physical existence perhaps it doesn't exist at all.

Causality:
"influence by which one event, process, state or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause."

By this definition a cause is temporal, it has a time element to it. Without matter there is no time. A cause should also necessarily be physical. Events, processes, states and objects are physical. By this a cause has no agency and no mind. Causes are by definition natural and material. 

So perhaps the most reasonable thing we can infer is that cosmic expansion is itself the cause of the universe. Without the Big Bang there would be no universe, so maybe the Big Bang itself is the cause of the universe.

 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lars C]

Well, the argument absolutely says things about the nature of the cause. The exact same argument can be reformulated multiple ways, and it is. "Everything that begins to exist has a transcendent cause", "the universe began to exist", "therefore the universe has a transcendent cause".

This is synonymous to stating "something that begins to exist is not it's own cause".

If matter had a cause, the cause cannot be matter. X cannot be the cause of X, just like I can't be my own mother. Even if I don't know who my mother is, and know nothing about her, I can state that she is a female and she is not me. 

If matter had a cause, the cause absolutely cannot be matter, therefore it is not material. It is immaterial.

The Big Bang is not a cause either. The Big Bang happened like 13.4 billion years ago, not past eternally. 

I'm not sure how you make the connection that the immaterial "can't interact with the material". There's certainly no deductive argument that you could come up with, such as the Kalam, that would lead to that conclusion. That would be an assertion from ignorance.

We can infer a few things through the Kalam Argument, mainly that the cause of the universe is immaterial, and is not dependent upon space nor dependent upon energy. This is based on synthetic logical inference. We observe things in the universe, and make the deductions.

All the other stuff you're talking about is simply beyond the scope of the argument, and seems to be mere speculation.

account no longer exists writes:

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

No cause can be it's own cause just like a human creates humans and there is no reason to believe that the first cause must be immaterial take for example that x is the first cause and has ability to create universe and that is dependent upon energy it doesn't matter what energy and that energy is what helps him to work later when the universe was created it vanished and that x was an invisible thing and is unconscious and hence it's is not created by anything and the first cause doesn't need to be immaterial. Also remember it's natural.

account no longer exists writes:

[To Lynx Ssss]

"there is no reason to believe that the first cause must be immaterial"

Yes there is, and I listed them all in my previous comments. Matter began to exist, and since matter cannot be it's own cause, the cause must be immaterial. X=matter. X began to exist. Therefore the cause of X !=X If it is not material (matter), then it is immaterial.

"The first cause and has ability to create universe and that is dependent upon energy"

This is  equivocation. "Energy" is matter (it's mass times the speed of light squared). You know... the whole relativity thing. When you say something requires "energy" to create, you could be correct, but it is not material energy (things like electrons escaping from an atom and forming electricity, or nuclear fusion occurring to create heat). Material energy began to exist, therefore material energy has some immaterial cause.

"It doesn't matter what energy". 

This is just bald assertion. It matters very much "what energy". Physical energy is energy, matter etc, that are all related to particles, space and atoms. This is what is known as the "physical universe". All of that began to exist.

I didn't understand what you were trying to say for the sentence after that.

"the first cause doesn't need to be immaterial."

Yes it does.

"Also remember it's natural."

You need to define what "natural" means. If God has existed eternally, and created all matter, life and everything we see in the universe, what could more "natural" than God? The cause simply was not what you nor I, nor scientists would call "physical". It would be something like the various religions were trying to tell us about for the past several millennia.

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

No, you don't know what kalam cosmological agrument is based on, it's based on the first cause and it can be anything right? And as mentioned previously that can be x and others

 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lars C]

" Without the Big Bang there would be no universe, so maybe the Big Bang itself is the cause of the universe."

I agree entirely, however, that only pushes the question back a stage - what caused the Big Bang?

This infinite regress scenario is (in my opinion) where some people give up and install "God", purely by brute force. Everything happens for a reason, except for God. Why? Because God is special - so special that it invokes the fallacy of Special Pleading :) 

Lars C writes:
[To Jim]

Exactly, special pleading. If there has to be a first cause, why not settle with the BB as a first cause? 

Monique Z writes:
[To Lars C]

Exactly, special pleading. If there has to be a first cause, why not settle with the BB as a first cause? 

 

Because then you have to explain why the big bang happened at all. The big bang isn't itself a cause. Its an occurrence that had to be caused by something else.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

Why do you think they have to be caused by something else?

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

Why big bang happened? 

Let me ask you 

Why does god exist?

Monique Z writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

Refer back to the initial premise of the argument. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The big bang began to exist, therefore the big bang must have a cause. 

God exists as a necessary entity that is in part responsible for all causal events. It is what is called the "breath of life", an animating substance, or the prime mover. Whether that substance is personal or not is a different subject. This is what a theist believes about what caused the big bang. The reason atheists reject this is because they refuse to use God as an explanation unless direct evidence that a God exists can be produced.

However, this begs the question as to why they are willing to accept other explanations like a quantum vacuum as valid without direct evidence so long as it doesn't involve God. God is a perfectly acceptable explanation, but one Atheists simply don't like.

If you're an atheist you're explanation might be that this entity is a quantum vacuum that spontaneously fluctuated for no particular reason and somehow created a universe. The reason this l acks believability to the theist is because the probability that a universe finely tuned for life would be born uncaused via chance is extremely low (arguably much less than the probability God exists). 

Have your pick at whichever of these philosophies you agree with because they are both equally unsupported by direct evidence and cannot be confirmed by observation.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

What do you mean? Where did you learn that big bang didn't have a cause? It did! Also why do you think that the universe can't be fine tuned? It isn't even fine tuned also universe is created from cause and effect and not by chance and just like your god I can too assume anything right? Just like I mentioned random things like this and that to replace god because you think that we don't have any other way around also you don't have any evidence that god exist. 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lars C]

And on top of what I just responded, asserting that "rules" (like abstract objects) only exist in the mind, is just false. That too is a highly debatable topic, and is not likely that they only exist in the mind (either that or God must exist and it all derives from God), but that is an entirely different debate.

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Why would that cause be immaterial?

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

The cause would be immaterial, because matter began to exist and  can't be it's own cause. Things that are not made of matter, are by definition, immaterial.

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Your agrument seems nonsensical matter can be created by energy and they are interchangeable also there can be other way around that matter can be created through another things and you are assuming that it's immaterial you don't provide any claim that supports your agrument.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

Once again, read the previous posts, and citations. Energy and matter are one, and they both began to exist, as you would see, if you bothered to read my citations.

If matter can be created through "other things", then those "other things" are immaterial. I'm not sure if this is just a problem you're having understanding logic, but it's far from nonsensical. If you're having a problem understanding that, maybe someone here would be willing to help you.

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

No, energy and matter aren't one they are interchangeable also you think energy can be created right? But that's not what science tells us at all also by immaterial you mean non energy right? Then your god can be replaced by other things sigh now concept of god is dead.

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Your agrument is just like saying " Humans aren't it's own cause therefore something immaterial created it" but you are just assuming things and excluding possibilities.

Monique Z writes:

[To Lynx Ssss]

universe is created from cause and effect and not by chance.
 

I have to point out that you're arguing both sides of the argument. At first you suggested universe was caused by the big bang, but you also argue that the big bang needs no cause (you say it caused itself, which means the mechanism must be chance). If the big bang --the event that caused the universe to come into existence--happened without a cause then the universe was not created by cause and effect. 

If the big bang had no cause as you're trying to argue then the big bang had to happen as a matter of chance. You can't have it both ways.

Which side are you contending:

A) the universe was created via chance

B) the universe was created via prior causation

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

I have to point out that you're arguing both sides of the argument. At first you suggested universe was caused by the big bang, but you also argue that the big bang needs no cause (you say it caused itself, which means the mechanism must be chance). If the big bang --the event that caused the universe to come into existence--happened without a cause then the universe was not created by cause and effect. 

Strawman fallacy. Did I ever said big bang created itself? I only told that state that can cause big bang always existed just like god. And always existing doesn't mean that universe isn't created by cause and effect.

No, it doesn't need to happen by matter of chance I just told that it can happen through cause and effect.

 

Monique Z writes:

[To Lynx Ssss]

why not settle with the BB as a first cause?.

 

Note your statement in a previous post. You proposing maybe the big bang is the first cause. That mean the big bang had no cause that preceded it. If it happened as a matter of "cause and effect" as you're arguing then the big bang does in fact require a cause that preceded it. 

Now I'll assume what you want to say is a quantum flucttuation is the first cause. But then we're back to what I already said. The quantum fluctuation cannot have a prior cause and so happened as a matter of chance 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

No, it always existed just like your god I didn't told that big bang require cause and effect I just told it can create universe through cause and effect you are strawmaning my agrument and no it didn't happen matter of chance it always existed just like your god.

Monique Z writes:

[To Lynx Ssss]

You're position is incoherent. Let's follow the argument where it leads:

At first you ask "why not settle on the BB as the first cause?" Ok let's assume the big bang is the first cause. 

That means the big bang cannot have a prior cause. If it did have a prior cause, that thing would be the first cause . How did the big bang happen then if it was not caused by something prior? It would have to happen by chance if you're proposing Atheism (unless you're proposing an infinite regress of causes, but you aren't because you claimed the first cause "always existed") Yet, you deny chance is the cause when you said "Where did you learn that big bang didn't have a cause? It did!" Therefore, the big bang is not the first cause. 

So then what caused the big bang?

Scientists say the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation that happened as a matter of pure chance. As Lawrence Krauss states in his book , 'A Universe From Nothing', nothing is "unstable". He and other Atheists contend long as the laws of physics exist, eventually some event will randomly cause a universe to be born. 

I won't get into the potential issues with this argument, but the point is that this happens as a matter of chance. If the quantum fluctuation did not happen as a matter of chance, then you have to explain what caused it, and if that cause didn't happen by chance then you have to name what caused that cause, thus leading to an infinite regress of required prior causes. This is why cause and effect is an invalid explanation for the first cause. 

You stated the first cause "always existed just like your god" so we're not dealing with an infinite regress. 

Then we're back to the same question: what caused the first cause? You have still failed to answer the question. You deny that it caused itself, and you deny it was caused by chance. You also deny that it was caused by a prior cause. This leaves you with no explanation whatsoever.

There's no place left to go with this argument. You have to admit some of what you said is false if you want to salvage this argument.

account no longer exists writes:

[To Monique Z]

Yes big bang didn't have a prior cause because it always existed just like your god and it doesn't even need any prior cause and it can be first cause because it always existed you are always telling by chance and by chance and strawmaning my agrument I just told that it can happen through cause and effect what the hell?

My gosh! I told it did have a cause and by that I mean when big bang exploded not that what came before what caused big bang. No they don't tell they happened by matter of pure chance at least study about big bang. Are you stupid? Why do I need to explain infinite regress? I can just add green turtle as first cause that caused big bang and that turtle is natural powerful and no different from nature but can create things like big bang just to replace your so called god. Also remember there is nothing that violates cause and effect not even god.

Monique Z writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

So you are saying what I thought you were saying...the big bang caused itself! 

By what mechanism exactly? Did it choose to explode one day? If it didn't happen by chance then how did it happen?

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

By what mechanism? It's through cause and effect and laws.

Monique Z writes:

[To Lynx Ssss]

Let's look at your argument again.

You state: "Yes big bang didn't have a prior cause because it always existed just like your god and it doesn't even need any prior cause and it can be first cause because it always existed " 

Firstly, saying the big bang always existed would be like saying WW2 always existed. This is absurd. The big bang is an event in time that began 13.7 billion years ago. It did not always exist. You can deny this if you want but it goes against the science. 

Secondly, this contradicts your previous statement "Where did you learn that big bang didn't have a cause? It did!" 

I'll ignore the fact that you claimed the big bang does have a prior cause and assume you think the big bang is the first cause as you're claiming now.

You claim the big bang happened spontaneously by "cause and effect laws". Yet deny this has anything to do with chance. Then what relevance are the laws of cause and effect? The laws of cause and effect is not an entity and does not have agency, which means they don't have the ability to cause a big bang. The laws of cause and effect don't have a mind to choose to make a big bang. So  how do you propose the laws of cause and effect made the big bang happen? By necessity? Predetermination? You are merely stating cause and effect exists, therefore the big bang happened (but deny the big bang had a prior cause!?!?)

The only way to avoid an infinite regress of prior causes would be to assert (a) the first cause that caused the universe to come into existence happened randomly as a matter of chance, or (b) the God hypothesis 

You obviously don't believe in the God hypothesis, so then you have to accept the big bang was caused by chance. There is no other option. 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

First I never claimed big bang was first cause. Second if by big bang you mean explosion then that have a cause, And by big bang I mean something that caused big bang let it be quantum fluctuations it didn't have a cause. No I said THE THING THAT CAUSED BIG BANG (explosion) THROUGH CAUSE AND EFFECT NOT THAT THE CAUSE THAT CAUSED BIG BANG HAVE A CAUSE. Yes I sent that it is by chance. What relevance are the cause and effect? What do you mean? Just like you throw a ball it happens through cause and effect right? Did it happen by chance? When a tree grows did it happen by chance? What the hell do you mean? You think cause and effect can do nothing just because it doesn't have ability? It doesn't even need to have ability at all. Also laws of cause and effect depend on what is available to them and also just imagine raining it doesn't even need any conscious agency and they don't even need to decide they just need laws and something to cause it doesn't need mind. Again False dichotomy you think there are two options but there are many like 

1. Cause and effect 2. Chance 3. Green turtle 4. Special unconscious process etc. It needs imagination nothing else there are many options and I don't even need god at all

Monique Z writes:

[To Lynx Ssss]

"THE THING THAT CAUSED BIG BANG (explosion) THROUGH CAUSE AND EFFECT NOT THAT THE CAUSE THAT CAUSED BIG BANG HAVE A CAUSE. Yes I sent that it is by chance."

Finally you concede to the point I was making all along: Atheism proposes that the universe was caused to come into existence by chance. Why you felt the need to argue about this? I have no idea

"What relevance are the cause and effect? What do you mean?"

The laws of cause an effect is not a thing. It is a series of observationsn of how the universe we live in behaves. So the first problem with your argument is that you're assuming a universal law exists outside of the universe. But let's assume that it does for the sake of discussion. What is the probability that a random quantum fluctuation would not only create a universe, but a universe that is life permitting? It is not a guarantee. Therefore, even with the laws of cause and effect existing it still boils down to chance.

"Just like you throw a ball it happens through cause and effect right? Did it happen by chance?"

If you believe in free will, no. It happened because someone conciously decided to throw the ball. Cause and effect is at play, but it's not the reason it's happening.

"You think cause and effect can do nothing just because it doesn't have ability? It doesn't even need to have ability at all."

By what mechanism does it cause anything? Just by merely existing? I fail to see how this is more compelling than the God hypothesis.

"Also laws of cause and effect depend on what is available to them"

This is the issue with your theory. In the beginning there was only a vacuum of nothingness. Without anything available to them except the laws of quantum mechanics, a quantum fluctuation will spontaneously take place due to the fact that 'nothing is unstable'.

I'm not arguing this isn't plausible. I simply fail to see how this is less fanciful than the God hypothesis.

"1. Cause and effect 2. Chance 3. Green turtle"

The green turtle would be part of the God hypothesis. Cause and effect reduces down to chance because as I explained already the probability that a random effect would result specifically into the universe we live in is a matter of chance. 

"4. Special unconscious process etc. It needs imagination nothing else there are many options and I don't even need god at all"

I fail to see how imagination can exist outside of a mind. If imagination is the answer it would fall under the God hypothesis.

But yes, there is a third option: an infinite regress of prior causes. But if we agree there is a first cause this option is automatically eliminated.

Do you actually believe any of the possibilities you mentioned sound less ridiculous than the God hypothesis? Are any of them better substantiated with direct evidence? 

It seems like you're willing to accept any possible explanation so long as it's not the God hypothesis. 

account no longer exists writes:

[To Monique Z]

Laws of cause and effect is used to explain how universe works, take for example stars create iron cause is star effect is iron. Also you are commiting Strawman fallacy I never said laws of nature works outside of universe. Yes it happened through cause and effect you throw a ball you are the cause that made the ball throw and that throwing is effect of that action no green turtle is just a special kind of energy that has ability to create universe it's not intelligent and its unconscious and vanished after creating the universe and remember it's natural not supernatural also you are strawmaning my statement I didn't told that imagination can exist outside of mind also it doesn't fall under god hypothesis I replaced god hypothesis by green turtle and just like your god it doesn't need any evidence and I didn't told that I am ready to accept any hypothesis as long as its not god hypothesis I just told god isn't the only explanation. Also it doesn't matter if there is any guarantee that quantum fluctuations caused universe if quantum fluctuations caused life permitting universe then it did it doesn't need to have guarantee.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

Also I didn't even told that big bang is the first cause you are just bringing agrument of lars C and mixing it up with my agrument.

Monique Z writes:

[To Lynx Ssss]

No cause can be it's own cause just like a human creates humans.

 

Remember that were talking about the first cause as you correctly pointed out, so your analogy here is pretty absurd in context of the first cause. Are you proposing one day a human spontaneously created themself? I doubt this is the case.

It is equally as absurd to claim the big bang caused itself. Imagine a fire spontaneously causing itself to break out in a vacuum. This is basically what were talking about. In what way is this more plausible than a God hypothesis? 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

No dude, this is basic logic, and I'm sure you can find on this very resource you're commenting on information on "category errors", which is what you're committing. 

If HUMANS began to exist, then their cause was non-HUMAN. It's not possible that they weren't caused by non-humans, because humans didn't exist yet.

If MATTER (and space, and energy) have a cause, then the cause is imMATERial.  I guess if you don't like the word "immaterial" you can use something else like "non-physical" or even "spiritual" or to make it more palatable if you're an atheist, you could say something "something without physical attributes created the universe". Whatever you want. 

Whatever you call it, something that is not found in a science book, and is not composed of things we currently call "physical", is not made out of matter or energy, and is not a function of space, is the cause of the universe. Something non-physical is something religious people have always meant, for several thousand years, when they say "spiritual".

And once again, if you don't understand that space, matter and energy have a definite beginning, review the citations I provided. And since they did have a beginning, none of them can be the cause of themselves.

account no longer exists writes:

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

You told that matter can't be it's own cause which is true but you didn't provide evidence why physical things can't be created by another physical things and it's cause should be immaterial and also just because matter can't be it's own cause doesn't mean it needs something immaterial. Also your agrument is just like saying rain can't be it's own cause (material) therefore it needs something immaterial, which is nonsensical.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

You're not even kidding, are you. lol

So, as for the definitions used in this debate

Material: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/material 

"relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter"

The prefix im  as in (im)material.

https://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/prefixes-un-dis-im-mis

im as a prefix means "not". That is, im is synonymous with the word not.

If matter began to exist, then its cause is not matter, or immaterial. 

I'm not sure if millions of atheists truly are not capable of understanding very simple concepts like this, or if they literally do not want to understand them, or if there's like some spiritual force at work. 

I mean seriously....  im...

It's like impossible means that it is not possible.

immovable means it's not movable. 

impracticable means it is not practicable.

immaterial means it is not matter.

If matter has a cause, then it is immaterial.

Look dude, if you're going to just play stupid because you don't want to believe something, why even bother?

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

No, you said immaterial is spiritual, nonphysical.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

Yes, lol. Everything we call "physical" or "material" is made up of matter. Energy is a result of matter. Everything we can sense with our senses (except for spiritual experiences), everything we can detect with scientific instruments, everything we can observe with telescopes or microscope, with any instrument whatsoever, all of it, began to exist. 

If there's something out there other than all of those things I just mentioned, all of which began to exist, then it's immaterial, and non-physical, by definition, and what the religions for the past millennia have referred to as "spiritual".

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Matter is a result of energy and they are interchangeable. No we can't detect everything with instruments. No, you didn't provide anything that supports the claim that immaterial is the first cause. Also just matter can't be it's own cause doesn't mean you need something non physical you can either find anything that can create matter except matter or just spectaculate.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

Yes and they both began to exist, and I never said we can detect "everything" with instruments. I said EVERYTHING we can detect with instruments, began to exist. We can detect matter, and energy, and both began to exist, as did space.

You just can't be taken seriously at this point. 

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

No, I didn't told they didn't began to exist I just told non physical isn't the only answer to begining of the universe.

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Why do you think that it should be immaterial? Huh? You are just telling it's immaterial rather than telling why it's immaterial.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

You're kidding at this point. If matter began to exist, the cause cannot be matter. If the cause was not matter, then it is IMmaterial (literally not-matter).. LOL This is called the Logical Law of Non-contradiction. Ok, you're lost on this. Thanks for the back and forth. I wish you the best.

Monique Z writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

It seems that once again you are arguing both sides of the argument. You've been debating with The Great Corhniolio PhD about whether or not the first cause is immaterial, claiming it does not have to be. Yet the theory you provided me was that the law of cause and effect caused the universe to come into existence. Is that not an immaterial explanation? 

So you're just naysaying for the sake of naysaying even though your own theory is in agreement with his claims !?!?!?

 

 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Monique Z]

What the hell? He told universe is created by an immaterial cause or nonphysical also he didn't provide reasons to accept his agrument

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Aren't you acting dumb? Lol first you said it can't be matter that caused itself and you told that you don't like to use the word immaterial and you said it should be spiritual, nonphysical didn't you told that? So you are just retracting your agrument.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

Ok, according to you, the cause of the universe is "physical", it just has no matter, energy or space because all of those things began to exist.

And yes, if something has no matter, it means that you and I cannot perceive it with our physical senses in so much as we can only perceive material with our physical senses. 

I think you should probably like go study the subject for a while first and then form this huge opinion on it (as should about 99.9% of all atheists). Up until now you did not even understand that something that is not material is immaterial, and that's just problematic.

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Strawman fallacy. I never told that cause is physical I said there are many other possibilities than non physical and that can be physical or any other thing it can also be non physical (except god)

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Also your agrument no way supports the existence of god.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

If your comment were remotely useful, it would state "Also, I do not remotely understand this argument, what I'm talking about, nor why this argument is supposedly infers Gods existence, but I'd like to learn".

You clearly don't understand it, don't want to, and yet you're arguing about it. I find this very typical among atheists. I think I'm done responding to you now.

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Also, again your agrument no way supports the existence of god and in previous comments you tried to argue that matter is made by something immaterial means spiritual or nonphysical and then you instantly changed and told immaterial means non matter and then you told non physical. Also if your agrument has nothing to do with god then I agree and you just called me an atheist just because I reject your agrument I am agnostic.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

Uh no. I said an immaterial cause of the universe is something that religious people have always meant with the word "spiritual".  Something immaterial, that has no material energy that can be measured in electrical magnetic wave, nor has any attribute pertaining to a function in space, is what we would refer to as "non-physical". A thing with no measurable physical attribute, that creates universes with life, is what was always meant with the word "spiritual". Even in eastern religions that have no God, the immaterial "spiritual" realm is primary. 

An immaterial (or call it what you want) explanation of the universe is the exact opposite of what atheists have predicted for centuries.

This Kalam argument DOES support the existence of God, however it is simply was not the purpose of the argument. showing an immaterial first cause was the only intent. However, the existence of God is a secondary inference from the argument, as you can find it in full, and hosted in many places such as here: http://www.apologeticsinthechurch.com/uploads/7/4/5/6/7456646/craig-and-sinclair-the-kalam-cosmological-argument.pdf

The purpose of the argument was to demonstrate an immaterial first cause of everything physical, as religious philosophers have argued for centuries. I'd explain to you how you get to an inference to God in the argument, but I don't actually think you're interested in actually understanding it.

There are other arguments that  are meant to deal specifically with the existence of God, such as teleological arguments for example. A specific example would include The Fine Tuning Argument.

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

No, purpose of the agrument has nothing to do with god it has something to do with first cause. And fine tuning agrument isn't even convincing.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

My guess is, based on your understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, you do not remotely understand the Fine Tuning Argument (nor do 99.9% of atheists that I have ever heard respond).

However, I have no interest engaging you on that, or anything else, but I guess you can keep responding to me if you want. 

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

No, I understand fine tuning agrument and it's often said by theists that " There is ozone layer that protects us from UV there is earth that is in perfect position in solar system that supports life and decimal places and so on and so forth" And I can debunk that by saying it happens through cause and effect and if god created Ozone layer why did he even create UV? And you just tell 99% percent of atheist don't know what is this agrument and you instantly assume that I can't debunk fine tuning lol your logic doesn't make any sense.

account no longer exists writes:

[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

Really? You agrument is just confusing you claimed immaterial is nonphysical then you claimed it's non matter what is it? 

account no longer exists writes:
[To The Great Corhniolio PhD]

When I say humans can have it's own cause I don't mean that humans aren't created by non human, I just mean that any other humans to exist there must be first human that bring them to existence.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Lynx Ssss]

Well that's the concept you don't understand that you need to think about.

If humans began to exist and have a cause, the cause must be  non-human

If matter began to exist and has a cause, the cause must be non-matter or  immaterial.