The Kalam cosmological argument

My plan was to unpack number three as the discussion went on a bit. I do think transcendent is the only logical conclusion when we see what it means to be a cause of the universe.

Why do you feel 1 and two are unproven?

What do you mean by prove to be exact?

Would that require 100 percent epistemic certainty?

Honestly, I think there are good reasons to believe one and two

There can never be an infinite amount of events in the past

It has to start somewhere

Ok so, I agree with your definition of prove. I think we can work from there. In regards to the beginning two premises:

My understand of spontaneous radioactive decay is that it means nothing external caused the isotope to decay, that doesn't mean there's not an internal cause or explanation.

But even if that wasn't the case, I still don't see this as being relevant to the first premise. The first premise, although it has confirmation from inference, is a metaphysical truth.

And that is being cannot come from non being. Nothing cannot create or actualize something because nothing has no properties and no causal relation to any thing. It's non being.

The decay of isotopes doesn't really negate this principle. So really, this principle is definitionally true. Non being by definition of what it is, has no ability to bring anything into being. No scientific truth or discovery could negate that.

So it seems to me the first premise is definitionally true.

In regards to the second premise, as Dr Franklin alluded to, there are both philosophical and scientific reasons why the universe began to exist.

Firstly, the scientific evidence is there in the Borde, Vilenkin, Guth theorem.

The big bang, the fact the universe is expanding, and perhaps most strongly the second law of thermodynamics.

Philosophically, to say the universe is past eternal would mean an actual infinite can and has been instantiated. We argue that's just not possible.

If it is both simultaneously true that radioactive isotopes decay without a cause, and we cannot apply the law of physics to the early universe, then there is no reason to apply the facts about radioactive isotopes as being relevant to this discussion in regards to causality and the early universe. Whatever models we have of physics or causality, or lack thereof will not be relevant based on this reasoning, because they, according to you, break down. This sword cuts both ways...

Secondly, you  say that it has not been demonstrated that everything that exists has been actualized by a prior cause... Unless you can empirically provide an example of being coming from non being, or something being actualized from nothing, this is really just an argument from ignorance. What you're in essence arguing in this:

We have not seen every single example of a triangle, therefore the claim triangles have three sides is unproven.

Well that would be fallacious. We don't need to experience every single triangle before we can state they have three sides. It's definitionally true. Whether we accept the axiom or not.

As I argued earlier, the causal principle is confirmed by inference, but it's definitionally true based upon what we are dealing with. Non being cannot bring about being... It's non being.

In regards to premise two, did the universe have a beginning, you seem to have cast doubt on the BGV theorem...I am not a cosmologist so I will grant you this. What we still have though is the second law of thermodynamics.

In short, the universe is rapidly approaching a state of complete entropy. If the universe were eternal, we would have been in that entropy by now. Another way of looking at it, the usable energy in the universe is running out. If the universe were eternal, we would have run out by now.

Now, moving on to the possibility of an actual infinite:

There are several different ways this can be fleshed out, but to be succinct, there are two types of infinity. A potential infinity and an actual infinity. An actual infinity  is never instantiated. There are several reasons:

1. It would lead to absurd and impossible consequences.

Suppose I had a library with an actually infinite number of red and blue books. Now suppose I subtracted all the blue book (an infinite amount) from all the red books (an infinite amount). How many books are left? An infinite amount still.

So in this instance infinity - infinity = infinity.

But now let's say, I subtracted every book greater than 3

How many books do I left? 3.

So in this instance infinity - infinity = 3.

This leads to a logical contradiction

And because logical contradictions cannot be instantiated in reality, it follows an actually infinite series of things, cannot be instantiated. But it gets worse. Suppose for a minute we imagine the universe as past eternal. That would mean that everyday prior to today went on into infinity. If we look at the reverse of this, in order to get to today, there would be an infinite number of past events to traverse.

And that simply isn't possible. There would always be one more event to cross and complete before we could arrive at the present. Which means we would never arrive at the present. But we are in the present. So the number of past events leading up to today was finite. We couldn't traverse an infinite.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.

Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?

You first said that subtraction is not a valid operation you can perform on infinite quantities. That's exactly my point. That's the whole issue. If a mathematical quantity could be instantiated in the actual world, not just in abstracts, and we couldn't perform a most basic and fundamental operation on it, that becomes a problem very quickly. This is confirmation of my point.

You stated that mathematicians would have to throw out all of set theory if what I said was logically contradictory. Well for starters, what I said is logically contradictory, it's mathematically provable. But more importantly, you have to remember I said there are two types of infinites.

A potential infinite (represented in math by the lemniscate)

An actual infinite (represented by the aleph null

Set theory and things like transfinite arithmetic deal with potential infinites all the time, and there is no logical contradiction or any problem in doing this because they're abstract ideas. Even the aleph null and any operation done on that would be abstract.

The question is can an infinite be exemplified outside of the world of abstracts. When we try to conceive of that, when we try to put them in the space time world, we get logical contradictions as my above operation showed.

You stated my contention with an infinite past only works if I presume some starting point. There is no starting point, and that is exactly the problem. Think of it this way

If we are at zero right now, that means we traversed ALL the negative numbers. Now let zero be the present. And all the negative numbers be past events.

If we're at zero we traversed all past events. If they're infinite that's not possible.

You stated that whatever applies to the past must apply to the future, and if there couldn't be an actual infinity there couldn't be an infinite future. But again, the future is only potentially infinite. One more event can always be added, it's not that we have to traverse one more event that had already been added.

And since God by definition is outside of time, whatever applies to time does not necessarily apply to Him.

In regards to your argument from ignorance analogy, I never stated that we have never seen anything come from nothing, therefore it's not possible, so I'm just going to leave that one off to the side.

It seems to me you seem a little biased against the big bang and relativity. I think this might be the heart of the issue.

So I will ask what model do you personally prefer?

For motion…, although what is continuous contains an infinite number of halves, they are not actual but potential halves. (Physics 263a25-27). …Therefore to the question whether it is possible to pass through an infinite number of units either of time or of distance we must reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual, it is not possible: if they are potential, it is possible. (Physics 263b2-5).

 

You said there's no rule that says because you cant do certain operations on something doesn't mean it can't be instantiated, the point is not we can't do operations on it, it's that when we try to do operations on infinity the answers are undefined or contradictory.  That's not the case with things that are actually instantiated. Two hundred tomatoes minus 100 hundred tomatoes always equals a hundred tomatoes.

You said the answer isn't logically contradictory, just physically contradictory. What's the difference? How can a contradiction be instantiated no matter what we call it?

It's interesting you bring up Zeno's paradox. Aristotle actually takes my side here in answering that:

For motion…, although what is continuous contains an infinite number of halves, they are not actual but potential halves. (Physics 263a25-27). …Therefore to the question whether it is possible to pass through an infinite number of units either of time or of distance we must reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual, it is not possible: if they are potential, it is possible. (Physics 263b2-5). 

Hmm, that line of reasoning sounds familiar....

You keep saying we can't say anything about the universe beyond a certain point.... What point exactly are you referring too?

That the laws of physics break down may be entirely true, but we're dealing with math and metaphysics at this point, it's just frankly not relevant.

1. What is God

and what was it's cause?

2. So we assume that everything including God begins.

3. We assume that the universe and more appropriately matter began to exist.

4. Therefore we assume that the universe and more appropriately matter has a cause.

5. And the notion of transcendency is what it is. A fanciful higher brow word intended to define something that is only notional.

6. And arguments such as Kalam attempt to give validity to notional assumptions. Which in terms of knowledge leaves us still firmly stuck at the beginning of something without a clue.

If God does indeed exist.

There can never be an infinite amount of events in the past. There has to be a start somewhere.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause. 

There are two ways in which a theory’s resulting in an infinite regress can form an objection to that theory. The regress might reveal a bad feature of the theory—a feature that is not the regress itself, that we have independent reason to think is a reason to reject the theory. Or the fact that the theory results in the infinite regress might itself be taken to be a reason to reject the theory. The former cases are the easier ones, since in those cases we do not have to make a judgment as to whether the regress itself is objectionable, we only need to ask about the feature of the theory that the regress reveals. We will look at cases like this first, before turning to cases where the regress itself might be seen as a reason to reject a theory.

" U "niverse / " G "od contains Universe / God i.e. the latter is a subset of the former