Pro



The Kalam cosmological argument advanced by Dr. Craig can be formulated as follows[1]:



P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

P2. The Universe began to exist

C. Therefore, the Universe had a cause



1. is seemingly indisputable. As Craig put it, out of nothing, nothing comes! To deny this premise goes against reason and thousands of years of human observation and experience; indeed, to question it we must also question why things like a glass of orange juice or a cat do not just randomly appear out of nothing.



2. is more controversial, however there are good philosophical and scientific reasons to believe that the Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point. On the scientific side, there is a startling and rapidly growing pile of evidence indicating that the Universe began to exist from literally nothing at the big bang. This theory is supported by repeated observations such as red shift showing that the Universe is still expanding from the big bang, and thermodynamics. On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite. Indeed imagine for a moment if I took an infitine number of dollar bills and lined them up in order of serial number, then imagine that I took out all of the dollar bills with even serial numbers and lined them up in a seperate line, what would be the results? I would also have an infinite number of even numbered dollar bills--a logical contradiction since that would entail that infinity minus infinity equals infinity! But clearly this is absurd! The idea that infinity can exist in reality is simply philosophically bankrupt, causing the mathmetician David Hillbert to conclude[2]:



"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that of an idea..."



From these facts the conclusion logically follows. But what exactly does this conclusion entail? What could have possibly caused the Universe? We can logically deduce that whatever caused the Universe was outside of it (obviously, for nothing can logically create itself). The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds. But since numbers cannot cause anything, the cause must therefore be a mind. Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally but rather supernaturally. It must be above time, above space, and imensly if not all powerful in order to iniate the creation of all things from literally nothing. It follows then from the Cosmological argument that you have a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, imensely powerful, personal mind. Clearly this strongly confirms the God hypothesis.



II. Fine tuning



As scientists discover more about our world and it's beginnings they are discovering more and more that the paremeters allowing life to evolve are incredibly narrow and specific. Boa & Bowman[3] explain that, for example, if the strong nuclear force was off by 1% the Universe would be either all hydrogen or contain no Hydrogen at all, if the gravitational force was slightly stronger stars would be "so hot that they would burn out too quickly and unevenly [for life]", or if the electromagnetic force was weaker electrons would fly away before the could be bound into molecules, or if slightly stronger atoms would not be able to share, again leading to no molecules and thus no life. And so on and so forth. Indeed, even the initial beginning of the Universe has been fine tuned for the existence of life! In fact, the mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated that if the initial expansion rate after the big bang was altered by the absurdly small degree of 1 in 10^10123[4], life would not exist. So remarkable is it that our Universe contains these sets of values that even Stephen Hawkins concluded[5]: "...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".



Since its been proven both scientifically and philosophically that the Universe must have had an absolute beginnng, the continued observations of the extremely specific conditions for life to exist strongly disconfirms naturalism.

even more absurdly specific. For example, to even have a life permitting galaxy certain conditions must be met, for example the galaxy likely must be a spiral[6],[7] and must be far enough away from other galaxies that they do not interfere gravitationally with one another. Any life permitting star must be on the fringe of a spiral arm so that they are not too close to other stars, or too far to obtain many heavy elements needed for the creation of planets[8], and the star must be the right size and right distance from other stars in order to sustain life. A life permitting solar system needs to have planets certain distances away, ect and any the individual planets must be certain distances from the star and other planets and have an atmosphere and orbit consitent enough to substain life constantly. All this for just life, let alone intelligent life which constitutes .00000001% of all the species on Earth[9], a number best described as 0.



Moreover since science has failed to give a reasonable explanation for the abiotic generation of life, the fine tuning of the Universe and the existence of life strongly indicate design from an intelligent and powerful mind. One can do no better than to once again quote Dr Craig: "The odds against the fine tuning occurring by accident are so iincomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced"



III. Metaphysics



Smith and Kendzierski explain that the fundamental question of existence is "why are there any existents at all, actual or possible?"[10] They argue further that the question continues to why are there two existents? Or three? Or any other number? The conclusion they draw is that existents exist because there is a cause. This seems to line up with human experience and mainstream philosophy, but the conclusion they draw from this is one profound but seemingly indisputable: "the cause of multiple being is uncaused"[11]. Indeed, how could it be anything else? The implication of this is enourmous, the fact that anything at all exists requires some kind of first cause, an uncaused cause from which all other existents, actual or possible, come into being.



Multiplicity (that existents exist seperately- even though two atoms may have the exact same numbers of particals, they are not the same existent, or else there would only be one atom) has to be caused-- possible existants (for example, any future children one will have) cannot actualize themselves, cannot bring themselves into being, or else they would be actual, not possible. They must be brought into being by a cause. Everything that did not at one point exist (including everything that physically exists) was brought into being by some cause ad infintum until we reach the final cause--the uncaused cause that brought all else into being. This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe, what else could have caused all other existents? An intelligent creator meets this criteria, nothing else does. The authors further explain that we can only fully indentify: "the cause of [existence], God. Short of God we only identify causes in the sense that they circumscribe the area...bad food makes on sick, but what is "bad" in bad food? Bacteria no doubt. But what is bad in them? So we go on. Thus the attempt to answer 'whodunit' is successful only to the extent indicated, but the demonstration that someboy or something within a circumbscribed area did the job can be successful, but the demonstration that God causes multiple existences is the only instance of complete identification of a cause." [emphasis mine][12]



A first cause, God, is the only explanation for multiple existents.



It therefore follows that God exists.



Citations:



http://www.debate.org... Report this Argument I. The KCAThe Kalam cosmological argument advanced by Dr. Craig can be formulated as follows[1]:P1. Whatever begins to exist has a causeP2. The Universe began to existC. Therefore, the Universe had a cause1. is seemingly indisputable. As Craig put it, out of nothing, nothing comes! To deny this premise goes against reason and thousands of years of human observation and experience; indeed, to question it we must also question why things like a glass of orange juice or a cat do not just randomly appear out of nothing.2. is more controversial, however there are good philosophical and scientific reasons to believe that the Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point. On the scientific side, there is a startling and rapidly growing pile of evidence indicating that the Universe began to exist from literally nothing at the big bang. This theory is supported by repeated observations such as red shift showing that the Universe is still expanding from the big bang, and thermodynamics. On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite. Indeed imagine for a moment if I took an infitine number of dollar bills and lined them up in order of serial number, then imagine that I took out all of the dollar bills with even serial numbers and lined them up in a seperate line, what would be the results? I would also have an infinite number of even numbered dollar bills--a logical contradiction since that would entail that infinity minus infinity equals infinity! But clearly this is absurd! The idea that infinity can exist in reality is simply philosophically bankrupt, causing the mathmetician David Hillbert to conclude[2]:"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that of an idea..."From these facts the conclusion logically follows. But what exactly does this conclusion entail? What could have possibly caused the Universe? We can logically deduce that whatever caused the Universe was outside of it (obviously, for nothing can logically create itself). The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds. But since numbers cannot cause anything, the cause must therefore be a mind. Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally but rather supernaturally. It must be above time, above space, and imensly if not all powerful in order to iniate the creation of all things from literally nothing. It follows then from the Cosmological argument that you have a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, imensely powerful, personal mind. Clearly this strongly confirms the God hypothesis.II. Fine tuningAs scientists discover more about our world and it's beginnings they are discovering more and more that the paremeters allowing life to evolve are incredibly narrow and specific. Boa & Bowman[3] explain that, for example, if the strong nuclear force was off by 1% the Universe would be either all hydrogen or contain no Hydrogen at all, if the gravitational force was slightly stronger stars would be "so hot that they would burn out too quickly and unevenly [for life]", or if the electromagnetic force was weaker electrons would fly away before the could be bound into molecules, or if slightly stronger atoms would not be able to share, again leading to no molecules and thus no life. And so on and so forth. Indeed, even the initial beginning of the Universe has been fine tuned for the existence of life! In fact, the mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated that if the initial expansion rate after the big bang was altered by the absurdly small degree of 1 in 10^10123[4], life would not exist. So remarkable is it that our Universe contains these sets of values that even Stephen Hawkins concluded[5]: "...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".Since its been proven both scientifically and philosophically that the Universe must have had an absolute beginnng, the continued observations of the extremely specific conditions for life to exist strongly disconfirms naturalism.even more absurdly specific. For example, to even have a life permitting galaxy certain conditions must be met, for example the galaxy likely must be a spiral[6],[7] and must be far enough away from other galaxies that they do not interfere gravitationally with one another. Any life permitting star must be on the fringe of a spiral arm so that they are not too close to other stars, or too far to obtain many heavy elements needed for the creation of planets[8], and the star must be the right size and right distance from other stars in order to sustain life. A life permitting solar system needs to have planets certain distances away, ect and any the individual planets must be certain distances from the star and other planets and have an atmosphere and orbit consitent enough to substain life constantly. All this for just life, let alone intelligent life which constitutes .00000001% of all the species on Earth[9], a number best described as 0.Moreover since science has failed to give a reasonable explanation for the abiotic generation of life, the fine tuning of the Universe and the existence of life strongly indicate design from an intelligent and powerful mind. One can do no better than to once again quote Dr Craig: "The odds against the fine tuning occurring by accident are so iincomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced"III. MetaphysicsSmith and Kendzierski explain that the fundamental question of existence is "why are there any existents at all, actual or possible?"[10] They argue further that the question continues to why are there two existents? Or three? Or any other number? The conclusion they draw is that existents exist because there is a cause. This seems to line up with human experience and mainstream philosophy, but the conclusion they draw from this is one profound but seemingly indisputable: "the cause of multiple being is uncaused"[11]. Indeed, how could it be anything else? The implication of this is enourmous, the fact that anything at all exists requires some kind of first cause, an uncaused cause from which all other existents, actual or possible, come into being.Multiplicity (that existents exist seperately- even though two atoms may have the exact same numbers of particals, they are not the same existent, or else there would only be one atom) has to be caused-- possible existants (for example, any future children one will have) cannot actualize themselves, cannot bring themselves into being, or else they would be actual, not possible. They must be brought into being by a cause. Everything that did not at one point exist (including everything that physically exists) was brought into being by some cause ad infintum until we reach the final cause--the uncaused cause that brought all else into being. This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe, what else could have caused all other existents? An intelligent creator meets this criteria, nothing else does. The authors further explain that we can only fully indentify: "the cause of [existence], God. Short of God we only identify causes in the sense that they circumscribe the area...bad food makes on sick, but what is "bad" in bad food? Bacteria no doubt. But what is bad in them? So we go on. Thus the attempt to answer 'whodunit' is successful only to the extent indicated, but the demonstration that someboy or something within a circumbscribed area did the job can be successful, but the demonstration that God causes multiple existences is the only instance of complete identification of a cause." [emphasis mine][12]A first cause, God, is the only explanation for multiple existents.It therefore follows that God exists.Citations: Con

"P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause"

For the sake of argument, let us assume this is true for the moment as you are specifically applying this for P2.



" P2. The Universe began to exist"

I would offer two modifications to this statement:

"The Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago"

The premise of this statement made in the KCA is still the same. To make any statements about what was before the Big Bang is purely conjecture however.



"Our prospects for finding out, furthermore, are quite dim, as " by its very nature " practically every model of cosmic inflation wipes out any information about the Universe that existed prior" and our Universe began."[6]



The models most scientist accept concerning the Big Bang leave no clues to find out what happened before inflation ended. Scientifically you cannot say whether what was before this point (or before the Big Bang), began to exist or not. Did what was before "begin to exist?" How do you know if it did?



"C.Therefore, the Universe had a cause"

I must modify this statement also:

"Therefore, the Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago had a cause."



""out of nothing, nothing comes!"

Science has shown this to not be true in Quantum Mechanics. When applied to the universe, you cannot show me that there was "nothing" before the universe we know came into existence 13.75 Billion years ago.



""Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point" from literally nothing at the big bang."



This is not accurate.



"Classical general relativity predicts the universe began with a singularity, but it can"t prove anything until after the Big Bang." [1]



"the Standard model cannot be extrapolated that far back." [2]



"" Hawking and Penrose admitted that there was no singularity because their calculation" had not taken into account quantum mechanics"I do not know of a single working cosmologist today who says the universe began with a singularity" "No result derived on the basis of classical general relativity can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity."" [3]



"Steven Hawking"s no-boundary proposal which states that the universe simply had no beginning (A Brief History of Time, p. 136). " just as there is a limited amount of time in the universe, but try as we might" nor will we find a "beginning" or "end" of time" this doesn"t help with the apologist claim that the universe came from nothing."[2]



" "[T]he state of "nothing" cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus "nothing" should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe." So, the concept of "nothing" painted by Vilenkin"s hypothesis is very different from the concept of "nothing" as preferred by Craig which seems to be synonymous with the absence of all material reality." [2]



"On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite."

This is an improper statement.



"An eternal universe is not the same as an infinite universe. Time is the number of ticks on a clock. In the eternal universe that number is endless, not infinite. Counting backwards in time, the eternal universe has no beginning -- not a beginning an infinite time ago. The time interval from any moment in the past to the present is finite. So an eternal universe is mathematically possible." [3]



You can also argue this logically:

The only result of pure cause and effect logic is an infinite series of causes and effects. In order to claim there is an "uncaused first cause," you must first abandon the very logic you used to say there is a need for a cause. An "uncaused first cause" is illogical because of the logic of cause and effect.



"infitine number of dollar bills"

The problem with this example is that you are creating a scenario which cannot exist. Since this example cannot exist, anything you do to it cannot happen, and won"t make sense... because the infinite number of dollar bills cannot exist. (Don"t tell the Federal Reserve!)



"From these facts the conclusion logically follows."

An "uncaused first cause" breaks the logic of cause and effect, therefore it is illogical.

There is no thing that can logically be infinite: without beginning, but you have claimed this in your dollar bill example.



"The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds."

How do you draw this conclusion?



"Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally""

You have made further extrapolations without logic or proof. If there is no infinity, being "above time" would imply something that has existed for an infinite amount of time. Also, all powerful implies infinite power. According to your own logic, infinities are not possible, yet you are claiming two infinities in your explanation?



" It follows then from the ..."

In fact, all your arguments have attempted to prove that the infinities you are proposing are not possible. If infinities are possible, why can the universe not be infinite then? You have added an additional layer of complexity that cannot be logically explained, in order to logically explain the universe. All of your assertions have come from scientific misunderstandings and illogical explanations.



II. Fine tuning

"...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".

I would add "life as we know it." From there, the arguments lie in the probabilities.

What are the odds of you existing? An interesting though experiment shows: 1 in 10^2,685,000 [5] (I would agree that this is somewhat of an approximation, but consider the magnitude of this number)

But, despite these odds, you exist? Despite the odds of anything else happening besides what has actually happened; what has actually happened" is what took place. In fact, what are the odds of anything at all happening? What are the odds of anything at all happening the way they did? What have these incredible odds of everything happening proved? That odds are cannot be used to prove anything. If they are, I have just proved you don"t, or shouldn"t, exist, yet you do.



"constitutes .00000001%... a number best described as 0."

This number is actually best described as ".00000001%." If it were truly 0, there would be no intelligent life on earth.



"science has " abiotic generation of life""

There have been many breakthroughs in this area. Just because we do not know the complete and full answer yet, does not mean that we will not find out and does not mean a reasonable explanation is what you have described as God.



III. Metaphysics

There may be no "reason" at all as to why we exist. Any speculation as to why we exist is purely that" speculation only. It cannot be used as proof.



"Multiplicity ". the uncaused cause that brought all else into being""

Again, an "uncaused first cause" is illogical. You have continually pointed out that everything requires a cause. You have also said there can be no infinities. To explain everything that exists you then are claiming that there is a "God" which does not need a cause and is infinite in many ways.



"This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe""

An intelligent, infinite creator cannot meet the criteria of the reason he must exist.



You said:

1. "I will accept the burden of proof""

2.""more probable""



I contend that:

1.You have not proved the existence of God.

2.To show mathematical certainty in your assertion, you must give me two values:

a.The probability that the universe arose naturally

b.The probability that the universe was created by God.



The premise and logic of your arguments are flawed.



[Sources: Report this Argument I. The KCA"P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause"For the sake of argument, let us assume this is true for the moment as you are specifically applying this for P2." P2. The Universe began to exist"I would offer two modifications to this statement:"The Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago"The premise of this statement made in the KCA is still the same. To make any statements about what was before the Big Bang is purely conjecture however."Our prospects for finding out, furthermore, are quite dim, as " by its very nature " practically every model of cosmic inflation wipes out any information about the Universe that existed prior" and our Universe began."[6]The models most scientist accept concerning the Big Bang leave no clues to find out what happened before inflation ended. Scientifically you cannot say whether what was before this point (or before the Big Bang), began to exist or not. Did what was before "begin to exist?" How do you know if it did?"C.Therefore, the Universe had a cause"I must modify this statement also:"Therefore, the Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago had a cause."""out of nothing, nothing comes!"Science has shown this to not be true in Quantum Mechanics. When applied to the universe, you cannot show me that there was "nothing" before the universe we know came into existence 13.75 Billion years ago.""Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point" from literally nothing at the big bang."This is not accurate."Classical general relativity predicts the universe began with a singularity, but it can"t prove anything until after the Big Bang." [1]"the Standard model cannot be extrapolated that far back." [2]"" Hawking and Penrose admitted that there was no singularity because their calculation" had not taken into account quantum mechanics"I do not know of a single working cosmologist today who says the universe began with a singularity" "No result derived on the basis of classical general relativity can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity."" [3]"Steven Hawking"s no-boundary proposal which states that the universe simply had no beginning (A Brief History of Time, p. 136). " just as there is a limited amount of time in the universe, but try as we might" nor will we find a "beginning" or "end" of time" this doesn"t help with the apologist claim that the universe came from nothing."[2]" "[T]he state of "nothing" cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus "nothing" should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe." So, the concept of "nothing" painted by Vilenkin"s hypothesis is very different from the concept of "nothing" as preferred by Craig which seems to be synonymous with the absence of all material reality." [2]"On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite."This is an improper statement."An eternal universe is not the same as an infinite universe. Time is the number of ticks on a clock. In the eternal universe that number is endless, not infinite. Counting backwards in time, the eternal universe has no beginning -- not a beginning an infinite time ago. The time interval from any moment in the past to the present is finite. So an eternal universe is mathematically possible." [3]You can also argue this logically:The only result of pure cause and effect logic is an infinite series of causes and effects. In order to claim there is an "uncaused first cause," you must first abandon the very logic you used to say there is a need for a cause. An "uncaused first cause" is illogical because of the logic of cause and effect."infitine number of dollar bills"The problem with this example is that you are creating a scenario which cannot exist. Since this example cannot exist, anything you do to it cannot happen, and won"t make sense... because the infinite number of dollar bills cannot exist. (Don"t tell the Federal Reserve!)"From these facts the conclusion logically follows."An "uncaused first cause" breaks the logic of cause and effect, therefore it is illogical.There is no thing that can logically be infinite: without beginning, but you have claimed this in your dollar bill example."The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds."How do you draw this conclusion?"Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally""You have made further extrapolations without logic or proof. If there is no infinity, being "above time" would imply something that has existed for an infinite amount of time. Also, all powerful implies infinite power. According to your own logic, infinities are not possible, yet you are claiming two infinities in your explanation?" It follows then from the ..."In fact, all your arguments have attempted to prove that the infinities you are proposing are not possible. If infinities are possible, why can the universe not be infinite then? You have added an additional layer of complexity that cannot be logically explained, in order to logically explain the universe. All of your assertions have come from scientific misunderstandings and illogical explanations.II. Fine tuning"...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".I would add "life as we know it." From there, the arguments lie in the probabilities.What are the odds of you existing? An interesting though experiment shows: 1 in 10^2,685,000 [5] (I would agree that this is somewhat of an approximation, but consider the magnitude of this number)But, despite these odds, you exist? Despite the odds of anything else happening besides what has actually happened; what has actually happened" is what took place. In fact, what are the odds of anything at all happening? What are the odds of anything at all happening the way they did? What have these incredible odds of everything happening proved? That odds are cannot be used to prove anything. If they are, I have just proved you don"t, or shouldn"t, exist, yet you do."constitutes .00000001%... a number best described as 0."This number is actually best described as ".00000001%." If it were truly 0, there would be no intelligent life on earth."science has " abiotic generation of life""There have been many breakthroughs in this area. Just because we do not know the complete and full answer yet, does not mean that we will not find out and does not mean a reasonable explanation is what you have described as God.III. MetaphysicsThere may be no "reason" at all as to why we exist. Any speculation as to why we exist is purely that" speculation only. It cannot be used as proof."Multiplicity ". the uncaused cause that brought all else into being""Again, an "uncaused first cause" is illogical. You have continually pointed out that everything requires a cause. You have also said there can be no infinities. To explain everything that exists you then are claiming that there is a "God" which does not need a cause and is infinite in many ways."This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe""An intelligent, infinite creator cannot meet the criteria of the reason he must exist.You said:1. "I will accept the burden of proof""2.""more probable""I contend that:1.You have not proved the existence of God.2.To show mathematical certainty in your assertion, you must give me two values:a.The probability that the universe arose naturallyb.The probability that the universe was created by God.The premise and logic of your arguments are flawed.[Sources: http://debate.org...