The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[LetThereBe]

I'm sure most of you have already heard this numerous times, but I seek opinions.

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. The universe has a cause.

Its a very simple argument. But is it valid?
I think there would be few who question #1. So that leaves a few questions: did the universe have a beginning, and what constitutes a cause? Can something cause itself, or must a cause be external?

Two those who would argue against number 2, I would like to know how the universe being infinitely old is possible if the laws of thermodynamics are valid.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: LetThereBe I'm sure most of you have already heard this numerous times, but I seek opinions. 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. 2. The universe has a beginning. 3. The universe has a cause. Its a very simple argument. But is it valid? I think there would be few who question #1. So that leaves a few questions: did the universe have a beginning, and what constitutes a cause? Can something cause itself, or must a cause be external? Two those who would argue against number 2, I would like to know how the universe being infinitely old is possible if the laws of thermodynamics are valid.

I think the biggest problem is we can't think of any explanation that doesn't require something being prexistant.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe I'm sure most of you have already heard this numerous times, but I seek opinions. 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. 2. The universe has a beginning. 3. The universe has a cause. Its a very simple argument. But is it valid? I think there would be few who question #1. So that leaves a few questions: did the universe have a beginning, and what constitutes a cause? Can something cause itself, or must a cause be external? Two those who would argue against number 2, I would like to know how the universe being infinitely old is possible if the laws of thermodynamics are valid.

Maybe that only makes valid the theory that the universe is eternal.

[LetThereBe]

But the idea behind the Kalam argument is that God never began to exist, while the universe did. The exact wording is important. Hence the question: do all agree that the universe began to exist?

[Jack]

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

I think there would be few who question #1.

Like me. By cause, do you mean a reason to exist? I would then disagree. Existance does not imply a reason to exist.

But the idea behind the Kalam argument is that God never began to exist

Which supposes that there is a god. This makes it an argument of interest only to theists.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Isherwood Like me. By cause, do you mean a reason to exist? I would then disagree. Existance does not imply a reason to exist. Which supposes that there is a god. This makes it an argument of interest only to theists.

A cause and a reason are different things. I am not trying to say the universe serves a purpose, just that it is, and that is because something made it is, if you know what I'm saying. Simply cause and effect. The universe is an effect, hence a cause.

Secondly, the primary purpose of my bringing up this argument is to combat the idea that the universe has always been. Some may think the universe brought itself into existance, that it was somehow its own cause, and that is something I would like to get into later. At the momen my interest is with anyone who thinks the universe has always been.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe A cause and a reason are different things. I am not trying to say the universe serves a purpose, just that it is, and that is because something made it is, if you know what I'm saying. Simply cause and effect. The universe is an effect, hence a cause. Secondly, the primary purpose of my bringing up this argument is to combat the idea that the universe has always been. Some may think the universe brought itself into existance, that it was somehow its own cause, and that is something I would like to get into later. At the momen my interest is with anyone who thinks the universe has always been.

Why must the universe be an effect? What is the cause of God?

[Jack]

What is the cause of God?

Just be"cause"? :)

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Why must the universe be an effect? What is the cause of God?

Again, why are you making the assumption of God? Lets start this simply with the idea of an infinite past. While infinite time can exist in the sence that it can have infinite subdevisions within any given interval, that is not the same as the universe has always been. Most creationists say when God created the matter of the universe, He also created time, which is proving to be very interelated with all other dimensions. But at the moment, thats not what my question is. Don't turn this to God yet.
Secondly, the exact wording states what begins to exist has a cause. If the universe did not exist into the infinite past, then it began to exist. Hence having a cause. Can you agree with that much?

Point blank yes or no: Do you see any potential for an infinite past in regards to the universe.

[Jack]

Do you see any potential for an infinite past in regards to the universe.

As we understand infinity, no. But time at the moment of the creation of the universe would not be the same time we now understand.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe Again, why are you making the assumption of God? Lets start this simply with the idea of an infinite past. While infinite time can exist in the sence that it can have infinite subdevisions within any given interval, that is not the same as the universe has always been. Most creationists say when God created the matter of the universe, He also created time, which is proving to be very interelated with all other dimensions. But at the moment, thats not what my question is. Don't turn this to God yet. Secondly, the exact wording states what begins to exist has a cause. If the universe did not exist into the infinite past, then it began to exist. Hence having a cause. Can you agree with that much? Point blank yes or no: Do you see any potential for an infinite past in regards to the universe.

Why must there be a creation, or cause for that matter? Isn't cause just a human concept, like life and death? Must we apply all human made concepts into the depth of the universe?

In short, it's completely fair to say the universe has always existed. It may have never "begun" to exist in the first place.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Why must there be a creation, or cause for that matter? Isn't cause just a human concept, like life and death? Must we apply all human made concepts into the depth of the universe? In short, it's completely fair to say the universe has always existed. It may have never "begun" to exist in the first place.

Again, you do not think the laws of thermodynamics always operated? Eventually everything would be converted into heat-energy. The universe would be consumed by entropy. How could this be reversed, minus an intervening force of infinite energy, which I could only identify as God? If the universe always existed, all stars would have burned out, all planets would have been cold and dead, and life would be impossible. Anything that could possibly be in any way less organized would have been so infinitely ago.

[Jack]

A universe that consistantly expands and contracts, is "born', "dies" then is "born" once more would avoid your logic trap and be as consistant with any evidence we can find as any other theory.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Isherwood A universe that consistantly expands and contracts, is "born', "dies" then is "born" once more would avoid your logic trap and be as consistant with any evidence we can find as any other theory.

So how would an expanding and contracting universe regain lost energy? How would it return from heat to matter? And what forces could possibly cause such to happen? Saying that requires more faith than believing in God, because it requires one to ignore a physically observable law that creation does not require. How is the reversal of entropy possible without a source of infinite energy imput into the system?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe Again, you do not think the laws of thermodynamics always operated? Eventually everything would be converted into heat-energy. The universe would be consumed by entropy. How could this be reversed, minus an intervening force of infinite energy, which I could only identify as God? If the universe always existed, all stars would have burned out, all planets would have been cold and dead, and life would be impossible. Anything that could possibly be in any way less organized would have been so infinitely ago.

Stars burn out, planets get cold and lose life, and lifeforms vanish. Stars also are born from nebulae, planets are formed and gain life, and lifeforms succeed. You are assuming our universe is an isolated system, where it cannot exchange matter and energy outside of its boundaries. If nothing is out there, then I don't see why that nothing could be filled with something. That something being moving particles or energy.

[zynner]

Quote by: LetThereBe I'm sure most of you have already heard this numerous times, but I seek opinions. 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. 2. The universe has a beginning. 3. The universe has a cause. Its a very simple argument. But is it valid?

No.

You don't know if the universe or god had a beginning.

~ zynner

[Jack]

So how would an expanding and contracting universe regain lost energy?

There's no lost energy. The universe is the ultimate closed system, there's nothing outside it. Every atom that has ever existed and will ever exist is contained within it.

[Jack]

Saying that requires more faith than believing in God

A hypothesis does not require faith, it only needs to be investigated and tested to see if it's viable or not. Science does not pretend to be looking for absolute truth, unlike religion.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Isherwood There's no lost energy. The universe is the ultimate closed system, there's nothing outside it. Every atom that has ever existed and will ever exist is contained within it.

Not quite. Matter can be created and destroyed, but there is an exchange with energy. According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy cannot be decreased. A closed system will always move to the lowest energy state. Whenever any work takes place, heat is given off. Can the energy from heat move up to a higher energy type?

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Isherwood A hypothesis does not require faith, it only needs to be investigated and tested to see if it's viable or not. Science does not pretend to be looking for absolute truth, unlike religion.

The expanding contracting model is untestable. The idea that the universe will again be "reborn" is just as much an article of faith as any religion.