No where in the "argument"

The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a creator that is often used by theist. it is most notably used by William Lane Craig. I think this argument is a false argument and I will try to explain why here.

First, what is the argument?
Premise 1: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
Premise 2: "The universe began to exist"
Conclusion: "The universe has a cause" — Magnus

The Kalam arguments can not be used to argue in favor of god(s) .
The concept of god isn't mentioned in the premises or the conclusion so not an argument about god....but about the universe and its state of existence.

There is a variation on this argument. A more convincing argument in favor of gods:

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
2)An irreducible cause can have no deeper natural explanation or explain it's own cause.
3)The only logical explanation for the existence of the material universe are non-material supernatural causes.
4)Only supernatural intelligent being can bring non-intelligent material into existence.
5)The only logical conclusion: gods exist.

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
2)An irreducible cause can have no deeper natural explanation or explain it's own cause.
3)The only logical explanation for the existence of the material universe are non-material supernatural causes.
4)Only supernatural intelligent being can bring non-intelligent material into existence.
5)The only logical conclusion: gods exist. — Hillary

Numerous problems with your argument:
1) We have not actually found such a cause.
2) A first cause isn't necessarily irreducible
3) Assertion without support: assumes something supernatural actually exists that has the capability to design and produce a universe. Why believe such a complex entity just happens to exist? Why exempt it from requiring cause?
4) Unstated premise that material is brought into existence. An initial state of material reality does not entail being "brought into" existence; it entails no earlier state.

We have not actually found such a cause. — Relativist

I have.

A first cause isn't necessarily irreducible — Relativist

Not neccessarily, but in the real world it is, as you will realize how it works.

Assertion without support: assumes something supernatural actually exists that has the capability to design and produce a universe. Why believe such a complex entity just happens to exist? Why exempt it from requiring cause? — Relativist

There is support. The existence of the universe.

Unstated premise that material is brought into existence. An initial state of material reality does not entail being "brought into" existence; it entails no earlier state. — Relativist

Material, even when eternal, cannot have brought itself into existence. It's not intelligent enough for that. Only eternal intelligences can do that.

The Kalam arguments can not be used to argue in favor of god(s) .
The concept of god isn't mentioned in the premises or the conclusion so not an argument about god....but about the universe and its state of existence. — Nickolasgaspar

@Magnus

What @Nickolasgaspar says is correct.That's why Craig has to extend the argument further. And the subsequent lines of argument are controversial. At least the arguments are weaker than the Kalam argument, which itself is not fully convincing.

"It therefore follows that the universe has a cause. Conceptual analysis enables us to recover a number of striking properties that must be possessed by such an ultramundane being. For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and nonspatially, at least without the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham’s razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause.

Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly taken to be personal. Three reasons can be given for this conclusion. First, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Second, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality, since the only entities we know of that can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind. Third, this same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate anew a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. Thus we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its Personal Creator. He is, as Leibniz maintained, the Sufficient Reason why anything exists rather than nothing." (Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview / J.P. Moreland
and William Lane Craig. )

At least the arguments are weaker than the Kalam argument, which itself is not fully convincing. — spirit-salamander

-Correct because we don't have a way to investigate an Absolute statement like "Whatever begins to exist has a cause".
We can only answer that within the rules of our universe (not the Cosmos) and based on what we currently know, which is ok but that doesn't justify any absolute conclusion...and that I guess is a problem for any theology.

lol mr Hillary. You can not conclude to a point that isn't part of your premises!!!
And even if you did constructed a valid argument, you forget that you need to verify your premises for your argument to be sound.
Your premises are not just not sound, some are even wrong!

-"We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed."
-lol no you haven't. The theory of the big bang doesn't describe a cause. It describes what the progress of this process tells us for its initial condition.

An irreducible cause can have no deeper natural explanation or explain it's own cause. — Hillary

-If yo declare it as such...sure. But that is an Observer dependent declaration...not an intrinsic feature of the "cause" necessarily. Again you will need to demonstrate the cause and its nature...not just assume it.

-"3)The only logical explanation for the existence of the material universe are non-material supernatural causes."
-lol no! made up "non-material supernatural causes." are not explanations..not to mention logical!
You can not make up a bigger mystery and try to explain smaller mysteries. There is zero explanatory power in unknown and undefined concepts like the supernatural.
Even if we assume that we have verified the supernatural, in order to hold it as a logical explanation for existence, you would have to demonstrate its role.

-"4)Only supernatural intelligent being can bring non-intelligent material into existence."
-And how one can demonstrate that bold assertion? I mean you haven't demonstrated whether the supernatural is possible....how can you even make claims about its role in existence???

5)The only logical conclusion: gods exist.
Unjustified conclusion which uses an undefined and unfalsifiable concept. Your "god" artifact isn't found in any of your premises....so at best, if your argument was not such a mesh and unfounded you could only point to the supernatural.

We have not actually found such a cause. — Relativist
I have. — Hillary

In that case, your first premise is based on this unstated premise that a God exists, which makes your argument circular.

Not neccessarily [irreducible], but in the real world it is, as you will realize how it works. — Hillary

No, because an initial state of affairs can possibly be reducible to distinct, atomic states of affairs.

You also clalm that an irreducible cause can't explain it's own cause, but irreducibility is irrelevant: a first cause is uncaused, and therefore it's logically impossible for there to be a causal explanation for it. To assume other sorts of explanations exist entails another unstated premise requiring support.

There is support. The existence of the universe. — Hillary

The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural.

Material, even when eternal, cannot have brought itself into existence. — Hillary

Irrelevant - you seem to be making another unsupported assumption that material objects cannot exist uncaused.

Only eternal intelligences can do that. — Hillary

How could anything cause itself? If intelligence is needed to cause something, then you require an infinite series of prior causes. An uncaused initial state is coherent.

In that case, your first premise is based on this unstated premise that a God exists, which makes your argument circular. — Relativist

Let's see. My first statement is:

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.

No gods mentioned!

Not neccessarily [irreducible], but in the real world it is, as you will realize how it works.
— Hillary
No, because an initial state of affairs can possibly be reducible to distinct, atomic states of affairs. — Relativist

As it indeed is!

You also clalm that an irreducible cause can't explain it's own cause, but irreducibility is irrelevant: a first cause is uncaused, and therefore it's logically impossible for there to be a causal explanation for it. To assume other sorts of explanations exist entails another unstated premise requiring support. — Relativist

That's the demand for proof. The infinite chain of cause and effect (serial big bangs) needs outside creatures to be brought into existence (in an infinite past). Non-intelligent matter needs eternal intelligences to exist. I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods. It's me who should ask evidence for their non-existence.

There is support. The existence of the universe.
— Hillary
The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural.
Material, even when eternal, cannot have brought itself into existence.
— Hillary
Irrelevant - you seem to be making another unsupported assumption that material objects cannot exist uncaused.

Only eternal intelligences can do that.
— Hillary
How could anything cause itself? If intelligence is needed to cause something, then you require an infinite series of prior causes. An uncaused initial state is coherent. — Relativist

Material cannot have brought itself into existence, even when eternal. How? What's the physical process behind the emergence of matter?

There is support. The existence of the universe.
— Hillary
The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural. — Relativist

But there is no natural cause for the universe in it's eternal and infinite extension. There is a cause for every big bang in the eternal sequence of them, but what's the cause for the whole infinite sequence? And the cause for the right coupling strengths of elementary particles? One can invoke a string landscape (which is unprovable as well and invokes only 10exp500 possibilities, and strings are dubious in the first place, if you know what's it about) but what brought this string landscape into existence?

By "Universe", I'm referring to the entirety of material reality. I accept the assumption of a finite past (just as the Kalam does) - so there is no "infinite sequence". I infer there to have been an initial state, one that has the potential to fluctuate into one or more "big bangs". The initial state accounts for everything subsequent. I'm invoking no particular cosmology (string theory or otherwise). I'm examining this from a materialist metaphysical standpoint.

Material cannot have brought itself into existence, even when eternal. How? What's the physical process behind the emergence of matter? — Hillary

An initial state does not entail being "brought into" existence, it entails it existing uncaused and "eternally" - in that there is no time at which it doesn't exist.

I don't understand your issue with "matter", as that's not controversial: matter is composed of particles, particles are quanta of quantum fields, which came to exist as our "universe" (i.e. the product of the "big bang" that we examine retrospectively) cooled after the big bang.

Let's see. My first statement is:

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
No gods mentioned! — Hillary

You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods."

The infinite chain of cause and effect (serial big bangs) needs outside creatures to be brought into existence (in an infinite past). — Hillary

Supposing an infinite past is somehow feasible, what is an "outside creature"? As noted, I regard "the universe" as the entirety of material reality; hence there are no "outside creatures". Assume such things, if you like, but don't then claim you've proven one of these actually exists when you simply assume it.

Non-intelligent matter needs eternal intelligences to exist. I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods.

So your argument is circular.

It's me who should ask evidence for their non-existence.

You presented an argument that ostensibly proves there's a God. Your argument is a failure, for all the reasons I stated. If this argument is at all related to your justification for belief, then I conclude your belief in God is irrational. Calling it a "default" doesn't rationally justify holding it as a belief. Personally, I prefer to hold rational beliefs.

BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe. I'm aware of many atheists who's belief in the non-existence of gods is rational, and I'm open to the possibility there may be theists who hold their beliefs rationally. Maybe I'll encounter such a person someday.

I don't understand your issue with "matter", as that's not controversial: matter is composed of particles, particles are quanta of quantum fields, which came to exist as our "universe" (i.e. the product of the "big bang" that we examine retrospectively) cooled after the big bang. — Relativist

Matter consists of real particles that inflated into real existence from virtual particles. Before the big bang, before inflation, only virtual particles rotated in the small spacetime or energy-momentum space (time-position and energy-momentum are equivalent). So the virtual particles turned real and in a sense real particles are time extended virtual particles with well definied position (time) and momentum (energy). But from where did this come? What caused this virtual matter to exist? What caused the spacetime they exist in to exist? Thermodynamic time and the space in which it enrolls emerged from the singularity and behind us this will happen again, as it happened many times before. But where does it come from, if not from gods?

So your argument is circular. — Relativist

No. Its not circular, as no cause or reason for existence is given by physics. Only gods can do that. The Default State is gods plus the universe they created. All claims positing that gods don't exist need to prove that claim and by repeating that I must give the proof, the real circular reasoning is exposed. Because that seems to be the main problem. The need for proof. No, the claim that diverges from the default state needs to prove the claim gods don't exist. I don't have to prove anything within the realm of creation.

You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods." — Relativist

Yes, but that was not in the five points. Your default state is the universe without gods. Do you have proof?

BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe — Relativist

What about the ratio, "reason for existence"? Can I be more rational?

Matter consists of real particles that inflated into real existence from virtual particles. — Hillary

That's not a view consistent with Quantum Field Theory, which holds that quantum fields are fundamental, particles are quanta of quantum fields, and "virtual particles" just useful, computational fictions that are used to describe certain behaviors of quantum fields other than particle behavior. See this article. Here's a snippet:

A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

No. Its not circular, as no cause or reason for existence is given by physics. Only gods can do that. The Default State is gods plus the universe they created. . — Hillary

Theists are apt to form arguments from ignorance based on the current state of physics, so I don't play that game. As I mentioned, I'm examining this in terms of materialist metaphysics. I defended the notion that the past is finite, and a finite past entails an uncaused first cause, which by definition cannot have a cause - and therefore no causal explanation. If you were to insist it must have a non-causal explanation, then you have the burden to show that non-causal explanations are metaphysically necessary for existence. Or is this just another of your unstated premises that you choose to believe as a "default"? :-)

All claims positing that gods don't exist need to prove that claim and by repeating that I must give the proof, the real circular reasoning is exposed.

All premises in an argument need to be supported, including unstated premises. I'm not making an argument, so I have no such burden; I'm just critiquing yours.

the claim that diverges from the default state needs to prove the claim gods don't exist. I don't have to prove anything within the realm of creation

You're confused. You presented an argument, and if you can't make a case for its soundness then the argument (as presented) is vacuous. You believe in God. I got that, and I have not suggested I can prove your belief false. So what is the point of presenting an argument that you can't defend other than by saying "prove it false (or unsound)?" Is it not obvious that such an argument would persuade no one? So what is the point of presenting it? Why not simply assert "I believe in God. Prove me wrong," since that's essentially what you're doing in a roundabout way?

You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods." — Relativist

Yes, but that was not in the five points. Your default state is the universe without gods. Do you have proof? — Hillary

Your first stated premise is contingent upon the existence of gods. Without that assumption, no one would consider your argument sound. That's my point. I don't have a "default state" about gods (you may be mistaking me with someone else), but I'm pointing out that someone presenting an argument has the burden of arguing for its soundness. If you aren't able to do that, then just admit it.

BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe — Relativist


What about the ratio, "reason for existence"? Can I be more rational? — Hillary

What you just said makes no sense ("ratio"?!). So yes, you can be more rational.

That's not a view consistent with Quantum Field Theory, which holds that quantum fields are fundamental, particles are quanta of quantum fields, and "virtual particles" just useful, computational fictions that are used to describe certain behaviors of quantum fields other than particle behavior. See this article. Here's a snippet: — Relativist

Yes, I have read that a 1000 times already. But not being observed doesn't mean the virtual particles don't exist. The mathematical description of a virtual particle is pointing at exactly what such a particle is. A particle not on mass shell to which real particles couple (and other virtual particles too). It's what the vacuum is made of. And the gods created that special kind of vacuum.

What about the ratio, "reason for existence"? Can I be more rational?
— Hillary
What you just said makes no sense ("ratio"?!). So yes, you can be more rational.
1h — Relativist

How can I be more rational then? It makes perfect sense to me: the gods are the reason for existence. The reason= ratio!

Theists are apt to form arguments from ignorance — Relativist

Yes, arguments from ignorance. The usual reply. I have heard the same thing from others. But the fact is, I argue from knowledge of the cosmos. I know the workings of the cosmos. And thats the basis of my my default position that next to the cosmos gods exist.

I don't have a "default state" about gods — Relativist

Yes you have. You consider them non existent, and just to be safe you say that might evidence show up you believe in them. Well, you need the evidence and I don't. I know for sure they exist. I saw them in a dream, making preparations for creation.

Yes you have. You consider them non existent — Hillary

After growing up Catholic, and spending years questioning what I'd been taught, I concluded gods don't exist. My default would have been to unquestioningly accept what I was taught, like most theists do.

just to be safe you say that might evidence show up you believe in them. — Hillary

That's a weird charge. Do you think it's 【u]better[/u] to cling to beliefs irrespective of evidence to the contrary?!

I argue from knowledge of the cosmos. I know the workings of the cosmos. And thats the basis of my my default position that next to the cosmos gods exist. — Hillary

What do you mean by "default position"? I had assumed you were mirroring atheists who propose that atheism should be assumed as a starting point, but your statement implies you concluded it only after learning about the cosmos, after previously having a contrary or neutral position.

After growing up Catholic, and spending years questioning what I'd been taught, I concluded gods don't exist. My default would have been to unquestioningly accept what I was taught, like most theists — Relativist

With me, it's exactly the opposite. I studied physics and was tought in the books that all can be explained by physical processes (the university was Christian though and I even had to sign I was a Christian! I didn't visit college, except for the last year, a few times; I can't stand classrooms). But science can't explain everything, especially not the origin of the universe, which gets clearer the more you know about such stories as strings or my own theory.

What do you mean by "default position"? I had assumed you were mirroring atheists who propose that atheism should be assumed as a starting point, but your statement implies you concluded it only after learning about the cosmos, after previously having a contrary or neutral position. — Relativist

My default position was that science has the answers. But it hasn't, in principle. So now my default position is science plus gods. They provide the reason for origin and the nature of matter.

My default position was that science has the answers. But it hasn't, in principle. So now my default position is science plus gods. They provide the reason for origin and the nature of matter. — Hillary

God of the gaps

From the link:

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence"

In my scientific knowledge there is no gap. You can call that haughty or whatever, but the material universe holds no secrets for me. But from where comes matter itself? Okay, real matter inflated into real existence from virtual matter. And a previous inflated real universe triggered it. And before that another, etc. But where does that series come from?

Well, maybe the nature of charge is a mystery. WTF is charge? Gods know...

So not a gap is evidence but the knowledge.

In my scientific knowledge there is no gap. — Hillary

Yet you said: "My default position was that science has the answers. But it hasn't, in principle" and "But science can't explain everything, especially not the origin of the universe."

That's the god of the gaps fallacy; our scientific theories can't explain X, therefore God(s) explain X.

That's the god of the gaps fallacy; our scientific theories can't explain X, therefore God(s) explain X. — Michael

Our science theories can't explain where the ingredients it describes come from. Even when new matter is introduced. As far as I can see the origin of matter lays in an infinite past. But what's the reason it exists in the first place? It just exists? What for? How can non-intelligent stuff has brought itself into existence?

I don't know. But responding with "therefore, it must be some supernatural intelligence" is a god of the gaps fallacy.

I don't know. But responding with "therefore, it must be some supernatural intelligence" is a god of the gaps fallacy. — Michael

Well, maybe. But science can't answer my question, because I have a model to account from the beginning to know. So it's no fallacy.

In my scientific knowledge there is no gap — Hillary

What the hell are you doing on a philosophy forum, if you already know everything?