Cosmological argument for God

[foodcritic]

I posted the Moral argument for God's existence and no one tried to refute it other than attacks on the bible. I like this argument as well. I will sumarize and provide a link.



The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary
by Bill Ramey
The cosmological argument for God's existence began with Plato and ever since has been defended--and attacked--by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Most people know the argument only its Thomistic or Leibnizian form, but a lesser-known Arabic version of it has received recent attention from scholars since the 1979 publication of The Kalam Cosmological Argument by philosopher William Lane Craig. Most of what follows comes from Craig's defense of the argument, though I will use my own words and sometimes my own examples and comments.

The kalam argument has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word kalam means "speech," but more broadly it means "natural theology" or "philosophical theism" (Craig, Kalam, 4). The distinctive feature of kalam-style cosmology is its stress on the impossibility of the actual infinite. Put simply, kalam arguments try to demonstrate (1) that the existence of an actual infinite (a concept from modern set theory to be discussed shortly) is impossible and (2) that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence must have had a beginning.

Here is an outline of the argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary

 

[SamSpade]

Kind of ignores the whole part of the universe having no beginning. The arguments against the infinite are the arguments of a philosopher but not a physicist.

Consider time, for example. When did it start? Ok, so it has a beginning. What was before THAT? Then the beginning isn't a beginning is it?

Is the universe infinite in size? It isn't? So it has an "end". What's beyond it? So it isn't "the end".

These dance all around the nature of time and space as though space were strictly three dimensional and the arrow of time goes only two ways.

You have a piece of string. It has a beginning and an end. Well, sort of. It does depend a lot on assuming that each "end" of the string is the beginnng and end. Tie the two ends together, and the distinction becomes meaningless. So it is with time.

Similarly with space, because we think of it as expanding three dimensions, when it's more than that. Where does space "begin"? Anywhere you want. Where does it "end"? Most people think "go far enough in one direction, and it will end". But space conceptually is like the surface of a balloon. It doesn't begin or end anywhere - and the balloon is actually expanding.

If the existence of universe is predicated on the non-existence of the infinite, then that very argument negates the existence of God, because he either always was (infinite) or like the universe, *HE* had a beginning - and thus the argument goes again.

 

[ItalianScallion]

If I may, I'd like to step into the sea before I go into space. I was watching a show on marine life last Sunday on MPT. They said that the number of normally plentiful herring was dwindling down drastically near Alaska and marine scientists couldn't figure out why. They did a study and found that it was due to the Eskimos killing off too many whales. How did that affect the herring? Well, the killer whales need to eat hundreds pounds of sea lion seals each day. The main food source of the sea lion seals is herring. So, since there were many more seals NOT being eaten by the whales, they were depleting the herring population by themselves.
My point here is: Only intelligent design could have caused this ecological situation. Evolution couldn't have foreseen this. It shows how every species of animal in the food chain is important in some way or another. When one goes down or near extinction, it can and does affect the others.
Only a blind fool (they'll be chiming in here soon) would doub't the existence of God and His perfect plan for humans & nature because the evidence IS there.
As far as the universe goes, it only has to be big enough for man not to be able to see or reach it limits. Mankind is dumb enough on his own to reason his way out of believing in God. The universe doesn't have to be infinite although it might be. There is way too much evidence for God's existence. Only those who choose not to see this argue against it. No matter though, they'll meet Him soon enough and change their minds.

 

[Xaquin44]

Only intelligent design could have caused this ecological situation.

why?

That statement makes no sense at all.

 

[ItalianScallion]

why?
That statement makes no sense at all.

To you, of course it doesn't. To Christians it makes perfect sense. So why persist?

 

[Xaquin44]

To you, of course it doesn't. To Christians it makes perfect sense. So why persist?

It doesn't make sense period.

For reasons too numerous to list.

but I agree on the 'why persist' part.

by all means continue to be saved .... from any semblence of intelligence.

 

[foodcritic]

It doesn't make sense period.

For reasons too numerous to list.

but I agree on the 'why persist' part.

by all means continue to be saved .... from any semblence of intelligence.

Hey folks....lets stay on topic

 

[foodcritic]

Kind of ignores the whole part of the universe having no beginning. The arguments against the infinite are the arguments of a philosopher but not a physicist.

Consider time, for example. When did it start? Ok, so it has a beginning. What was before THAT? Then the beginning isn't a beginning is it?

Is the universe infinite in size? It isn't? So it has an "end". What's beyond it? So it isn't "the end".

These dance all around the nature of time and space as though space were strictly three dimensional and the arrow of time goes only two ways.

You have a piece of string. It has a beginning and an end. Well, sort of. It does depend a lot on assuming that each "end" of the string is the beginnng and end. Tie the two ends together, and the distinction becomes meaningless. So it is with time.

Similarly with space, because we think of it as expanding three dimensions, when it's more than that. Where does space "begin"? Anywhere you want. Where does it "end"? Most people think "go far enough in one direction, and it will end". But space conceptually is like the surface of a balloon. It doesn't begin or end anywhere - and the balloon is actually expanding.

If the existence of universe is predicated on the non-existence of the infinite, then that very argument negates the existence of God, because he either always was (infinite) or like the universe, *HE* had a beginning - and thus the argument goes again.

If i can summarize here it sounds like you reject the notion that time began. That the universe had a starting point? So you reject the first point of the argument.

So your response is, the universe had no begining.

The response is not philophical but rather scientific explanantion.
The article addressed this issue with the following explanantion:
First, earlier this century, Edwin Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies is red-shifted, implying that the universe is expanding from an initial explosion which took place a finite time ago. Although a few scientists have challenged this interpretation of the red-shift, it has been supported by observation and successful prediction and has an explanatory power unmatched by other theories (Craig, Kalam, 160).

Second, the big bang theory predicted the discovery of three-degree blackbody radiation, a discovery which surprised other cosmological theories.

Third, astrophysicist Robert C. Newman writes "If there is any process which causes our universe to lose energy at a non zero rate, then an oscillating universe would have run out of energy (and so ceased to oscillate) long ago" (Newman, "The Evidence of Cosmology," 85). This means that it is all but improbable that the universe as we know it is one universe in an infinite series of expanding and contracting universes.

Fourth, there is no explanation for why a contracting universe would "bounce" and begin expanding again. Recent evidence confirms that galaxies are moving too quickly away from one another for gravity to pull them back into a compressed point.
Fifth, in April 1992, American scientists discovered ripples of matter at the edge of the universe. These ripples are evidence that the universe was given its structure very early in its history and further confirm that the universe had a definite beginning.

 

[This_person]

Kind of ignores the whole part of the universe having no beginning. The arguments against the infinite are the arguments of a philosopher but not a physicist.

Consider time, for example. When did it start? Ok, so it has a beginning. What was before THAT? Then the beginning isn't a beginning is it?

If time is, as is the current belief, interwoven into the fabric of space in the universe, then there would be no such concept as "before that" for anything regarding our universe - it would be a division by zero, non-existent. It would be a concept without meaning.

Is the universe infinite in size? It isn't? So it has an "end". What's beyond it? So it isn't "the end".

Again, if the current understanding is correct, it does have an end. If there is anything beyond that, it would be outside of the definition of our universe. So, it has an end where everything outside of it is beyond comprehension and definition to the inhabitants of the universe.

Think of a hypothetical two dimensional creature. There would be no such thing as a third dimension, therefore left and right are all they would understand, with no such concept of up and down. We get left and right, up and down, before and after, but there is very possibly another set of choices that we just cannot comprehend. IMO, God lives in that state as well as ours, like we live in the two dimensions as well as the third (and, yes, the fourth of time).

These dance all around the nature of time and space as though space were strictly three dimensional and the arrow of time goes only two ways.

You have a piece of string. It has a beginning and an end. Well, sort of. It does depend a lot on assuming that each "end" of the string is the beginnng and end. Tie the two ends together, and the distinction becomes meaningless. So it is with time.

Similarly with space, because we think of it as expanding three dimensions, when it's more than that. Where does space "begin"? Anywhere you want. Where does it "end"? Most people think "go far enough in one direction, and it will end". But space conceptually is like the surface of a balloon. It doesn't begin or end anywhere - and the balloon is actually expanding.

If the existence of universe is predicated on the non-existence of the infinite, then that very argument negates the existence of God, because he either always was (infinite) or like the universe, *HE* had a beginning - and thus the argument goes again.

The ends of that string are just connected, not meaningless. There is an end to the air within the balloon at the surface of the balloon, and whatever is inside is held to a different set of parameters than what is outside. I don't believe this argument predisposes the non-existece of the infinite, just that the universe is more restrictive/restricted than God is.

 

[SamSpade]

Only intelligent design could have caused this ecological situation. Evolution could have foreseen this.

I don't follow you at all on this. You're saying the ecological imbalance *proves* an intelligent design? Mass extinctions occur all the time - THAT it *part* of evolution. Niche species die when their niche is upset - adaptive species flourish or noew niche species emerge.

Evolution isn't an intelligence that serves to preserve the status quo. It's consistent that some species will vanish and others take their place.

Maybe I am still not getting you here?

 

[SamSpade]

Fourth, there is no explanation for why a contracting universe would "bounce" and begin expanding again. Recent evidence confirms that galaxies are moving too quickly away from one another for gravity to pull them back into a compressed point.

This is an assertion I really need to see backed up. To my knowledge, the determination of big crunch versus infinite expansion has never been established, nor have I seen evidence that it can be.

 

[SamSpade]

No one's answered the challenge underlying all of it - if a universe cannot be infinite in age or size, where is the rationale that God *can* be? How is it that the universe cannot have always existed, but totally reasonable to assert that God *has*?

Why don't the same cosmological arguments apply to him?

 

[Xaquin44]

I don't follow you at all on this. You're saying the ecological imbalance *proves* an intelligent design? Mass extinctions occur all the time - THAT it *part* of evolution. Niche species die when their niche is upset - adaptive species flourish or noew niche species emerge.

Evolution isn't an intelligence that serves to preserve the status quo. It's consistent that some species will vanish and others take their place.

Maybe I am still not getting you here?

thank you for typing what I didn't feel like hehe

 

[This_person]

No one's answered the challenge underlying all of it - if a universe cannot be infinite in age or size, where is the rationale that God *can* be? How is it that the universe cannot have always existed, but totally reasonable to assert that God *has*?

Why don't the same cosmological arguments apply to him?

Re-read Post 9

 

[foodcritic]

No one's answered the challenge underlying all of it - if a universe cannot be infinite in age or size, where is the rationale that God *can* be? How is it that the universe cannot have always existed, but totally reasonable to assert that God *has*?

Why don't the same cosmological arguments apply to him?

While this is a reasonable question. And may be answered. Can we get back to my original question?

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.

If your answer is B. I am curious if you can explain it's cause?

You do not need to answer the rest.....
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal

 

[SamSpade]

If your answer is B. I am curious if you can explain it's cause?

If it has no beginning, cause isn't relevant. It always was.

 

[foodcritic]

This is an assertion I really need to see backed up. To my knowledge, the determination of big crunch versus infinite expansion has never been established, nor have I seen evidence that it can be.

Since I can't say i have observed it...there are many main stream sciencetists that make the claim...or the Big Bang-Standard Model


As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."{13}The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

"... Led to the abondonment of attempts (mainly Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself , had a begining at the big bang" - Stephen Hawking & Roger Pemrose. The Nature of Space and Time.

The universe had a starting point (most agree) and it is expanding according to most that I have read..
Expanding Universe

 

[ItalianScallion]

I don't follow you at all on this. You're saying the ecological imbalance *proves* an intelligent design? Mass extinctions occur all the time - THAT it *part* of evolution. Niche species die when their niche is upset - adaptive species flourish or noew niche species emerge.

Evolution isn't an intelligence that serves to preserve the status quo. It's consistent that some species will vanish and others take their place.

Maybe I am still not getting you here?

What I'm saying is that the species didn't just evolve to be used as food for other species (the herring of my example). It takes a Creator (intelligent design) to put them here first. And, yes, they do go extinct at times but (again) intelligent design made allowances for that.

 

[Xaquin44]

What I'm saying is that the species didn't just evolve to be used as food for other species (the herring of my example). It takes a Creator (intelligent design) to put them here first. And, yes, they do go extinct at times but (again) intelligent design made allowances for that.

.... other species evolved to use that species as food ....

all part of evolution.

 

[SamSpade]

What I'm saying is that the species didn't just evolve to be used as food for other species (the herring of my example). It takes a Creator (intelligent design) to put them here first. And, yes, they do go extinct at times but (again) intelligent design made allowances for that.

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand the issue. The concept that a species arises that subsists on an abundance of a certain food is not only consistent with evolution, it more or less confirms it.

It helps to remember that evolution is not an intelligent Deity but a concept revolving around survival and reproduction. If nuclear war wipes out most of the life on earth, and the only thing left around is cockroaches, a species that thrives on the abundance of cockroaches will emerge to the top of the food chain. If there's an abundance of herring, species that can't thrive on it won't benefit from it - species that do, will.

Pandas thrive on bamboo - it grows very fast and in the right environment, will spread everywhere. Wipe out bamboo or otherwise threaten their environment, and the delicate balance is destroyed. Koalas on the other hand, survive almost exclusively on eucalyptus leaves. Besides having a very low metabolic rate and therefore needing very little, there's extremely little competition for the food, thus allowing them to benefit from it.

I can't begin to understand why you think this would suggest "design". If anything, it totally corroborates what evolution teaches. I would have to suspect an intelligent designer wouldn't make these kinds of symbiosis so extremely delicate, and would make species have a "back-up" plan.

Humans have made use of this basic concept for millenia - kill what it eats, kill the species.