Just wanting to test the Philosophical waters here and see what the opinions on the kalam cosmological argument are.

For those who need a visual aid, here is the William Craig presentation of the kalam.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I really don't know why people have to be so damn stupid.

Duh, the universe had a cause, so that cause was god and nothin' else.

seriously, the excuses. i'm so sick of the excuses.

quote:

I have don’t anything a priori. But I would assume something along the lines of what you describe.

OK, then I'm going to have to go with Aristotle, and argue that 'nature abhors a vacuum'. The only difference is that Aristotle didn't know that space was a vacuum, or that it's a vacuum filled with quantum stuff, and that physics currently has no concept of nothingness - even the opposite of matter, i.e. anti-matter, is not nothing but is in itself something. It does not seem reasonable to assume, based on all the examples of somethings that we have, and the universal absence of nothing (and yes, I realise that's an irony) that the universe just has some sort of edge beyond which there is nothing (and of course, even to say 'beyond' would be inaccurate, since if there was nothing, it would have no depth or time). That just seems totally inconsisent with science as we understand it today.

quote:

To have a realm of existence be infinite and all the nature of its realm be finite seems unreasonable to me.

I don't think I entirely understand this point. Are you saying that, if the universe was really infinite, that everything in the universe would also be infinite? Because,as far as my brain can wrap around the concept of infinity, that would mean that everything in the universe would be the same size as the universe (which is to say that every onject in nature would be infinite) which is to say that the universe wouldn't exist as we know it.

Or something like that.

quote:

If a truly infinite series of hooks existed, you would be correct. Just as correct as I am in saying that a truly infinite series of hooks does not exist.

So your objection is that empirically speaking the universe is not an infinite series of causes, when, again, emprically speaking, the entirity of the universe as science currently understands it points to an infinity of cause and effect (Big Bang, Big Crunch etc) - in essence, you simply deny that modern physics is correct in its portrayl of the universe, is that right?

quote:

The explanation of what a hook is and the concept of infinity is not sufficient.

I see my error; you want a deductive argument based on concrete premises that the universe is infinite. I'm afraid that I am not specialist enough to know, and do not have the time to investigate, though I would love to. Perhaps it would be best to consult Stephen Hawking on the matter, or maybe Roger Penrose.

quote:

the ball is in the court of the naturalist who argue the concept of infinite events rather than the concept of finite events.

Actually, I believe to the contrary that the burden of evidence lies with those who believe that the universe is not infinite, in that it is actually possible to prove that hypothesis, whereas it is not possible to prove the hypothesis that the universe is infinite, though, I would suggest, it is the assumed position of the vast majority of major thinkers since the rise of the Pre-Socratics.

quote:

I know that this is going to seem circular, but you see, it doesn't need a first hook. That's the whole point - a truly infinite series of hooks just goes on forever. If there was one first hook, it wouldn't be infinite. In a finite hook example, you need to have the hook connected to a ceiling to keep all the other hooks from falling down. But if there is no first hook but the hooks stretch upwards forever, then they can fall forever; they simply come from above and go down - they aren't actually suspended

As far as my beliefs on the “outer” outer space, I have don’t anything a priori. But I would assume something along the lines of what you describe.

If a truly infinite series of hooks existed, you would be correct. Just as correct as I am in saying that a truly infinite series of hooks does not exist.

My argument is only that it is the burden of the believers that a series of hooks can exist infinitely to at least reason as to how. The explanation of what a hook is and the concept of infinity is not sufficient. No more so than the concept of finite amounts and the nature of hooks is compelling enough for you accept.

quote:

But while an uncaused universe wouldn't disprove god's existence, it would chip away at one of the most common conceptions of god, and have important ramifications for the theologically deployed teleological argument and such like.

Quite right, but such as it is, the ball is in the court of the naturalist who argue the concept of infinite events rather than the concept of finite events. I believe this because of the mathematical inaccuracy of infinite events.

quote:

It seems we are going in circles here. :-P

Isn't that just philosophy all over?

quote:

To have a realm of existence be infinite and all the nature of its realm be finite seems unreasonable to me.

May I ask what you believe to be beyond the edge of the finite universe, if it is not finite? Do you believe that there is literally an edge to the universe, where quantum fluctuation ceases and there is simply nothing, not even the void of space?

quote:

The hook analogy still needs the reason for the hooks. One hook cannot simply be suspended by an infinite amount of hooks of the history of that hooks existence is dependent on an infinite series of hook preceding it. There would need to be a first hook.

I know that this is going to seem circular, but you see, it doesn't need a first hook. That's the whole point - a truly infinite series of hooks just goes on forever. If there was one first hook, it wouldn't be infinite. In a finite hook example, you need to have the hook connected to a ceiling to keep all the other hooks from falling down. But if there is no first hook but the hooks stretch upwards forever, then they can fall forever; they simply come from above and go down - they aren't actually suspended.

quote:

You might be a bit late. Physicist believe that there are uncaused causes in the world they are called "quantum fluctuations".

quote:

I am not sure that if convinced the universe is infinite it would affect my faith in any manner. That is to say that an infinite universe wouldn't "disprove" God's existence. No more so than a caused universe would prove his existence.

You are quite correct - I only included this question as part of understanding your perspective, rather than an actual proposition.

Good answer. But while an uncaused universe wouldn't disprove god's existence, it would chip away at one of the most common conceptions of god, and have important ramifications for the theologically deployed teleological argument and such like.

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfie:
You know, the universe may not be completely and utterly infinite, but it might as well be.

I don't know about you guys, but 14 billion lightyears (and still expanding) is pretty damn infinite to me.

Indeed, case closed.

Amazing..

You know, the universe may not be completely and utterly infinite, but it might as well be.

I don't know about you guys, but 14 billion lightyears (and still expanding) is pretty damn infinite to me.

It seems we are going in circles here. :-P

quote:

But the universe is not 'in' the universe. It is the totality of the universe, but there is no indication that the universe is an ordinary object like say a lamp or a laptop.

I see no reason to believe it is not. To have a realm of existence be infinite and all the nature of its realm be finite seems unreasonable to me. In every case I am aware of the nature of existence within the realm it exists share the same nature.

quote:

what about an infinite number of causes makes the current situation impossible?

What I was trying to address is the history of the universe. For the universe to exist there must be a finite amount of causes for its existence, if its existence depends on an infinite amount of causes, it would never exist.

The hook analogy still needs the reason for the hooks. One hook cannot simply be suspended by an infinite amount of hooks of the history of that hooks existence is dependent on an infinite series of hook preceding it. There would need to be a first hook.

quote:

It interests me because it means I know what is riding on your argument.

I don't find that Craig's CA is a positive conclusion to God's existence. As I stated in the original post (or OP if you will :-P) I was merely a thirsty philosopher looking for dialog, not unlike yourself. :-)

quote:

Would you accept an alternative cause to the universe, if I were to concede that the universe is finite and caused by an original cause?

You might be a bit late. Physicist believe that there are uncaused causes in the world they are called "quantum fluctuations". Although the natures of these quantum fluctuations are not really understood yet, it isn't a strong enough argument to present. Also from my understanding these “uncaused causes” can be created in controlled environments.

I am not sure that if convinced the universe is infinite it would affect my faith in any manner. That is to say that an infinite universe wouldn't "disprove" God's existence. No more so than a caused universe would prove his existence.

quote:

. I will concede that perhaps it will never be empirically proven, if it is so, it will be a long time from now.

I think you misunderstood slightly - because human beings are finite and the universe infinite, it is logically impossible that human beings could ever empirically verify that the universe was infinite. All we could do is demonstrate that we could go further, and then further and then further, and then further and so on.

quote:

I argued earlier that the understanding of nature is enough for us to empirically conclude that-in all likelihood-everything that exists has a cause.

But the universe is not 'in' the universe. It is the totality of the universe, but there is no indication that the universe is an ordinary object like say a lamp or a laptop. We have reason to believe that these things are caused, as in Hume's refutation of Paley's watch, but there is nothing that we can compare the universe with - we have no alternative experience except of things as they operate within this universe.

quote:

Now for every cause to be preceded by an infinite amount of causes is not a rational belief because infinite causes would make any current cause impossible to exist.

Why? This is obviously a point of fundamental disagreement between us, but what about an infinite number of causes makes the current situation impossible? This is the point I was trying to address with the hook analogy - it makes no difference to one cause if it was caused by only one cause or by an infinite number of causes stretching back into, well, into infinity. Any given result only requires a certain number of immediate causes, which in turn can be caused by a limited number of causes and so on into infinity.

quote:

This is my belief, but I have never suggested up to this point that is the case so why would you jump to that conclusion?

It interests me because it means I know what is riding on your argument. Because you believe in the Christian god, you presumably require that the universe is finite and originated in god in some way. This means that winning this argument is of prime importance for you, whereas for me, it is merely a matter of intellectual curiosity.

In essence, I know very few atheists who would have a problem with an infinite universe or even bother to contest the hypothesis, whereas I know quite a few religious people who have problems with an infinite universe. I think Wolfie probably has the same experience. Where has she got to by the way? (Wolfie this is your queue to rejoin the discussion).

Would you accept an alternative cause to the universe, if I were to concede that the universe is finite and caused by an original cause?

quote:

Just out of curiosity

I'm not sure if you were going to ask me a question after this or whether this applied to the previous statement - and I much preferred the tactful posting on this one, if you don't mind me commenting on it.

Ah ha! I believe I have figured out the quotation... thingy... so now I won't have to present my arguments chronologically anymore... :-)

quote:

I know that this "progress" model is not very popular and doesn't stand up to a great deal of logical interrogation, but it is worth bearing in mind.

Perhaps, but empirically at least very uninformative. I will concede that perhaps it will never be empirically proven, if it is so, it will be a long time from now. But at least we are on the same page that we can only rationalize the infinite of the universe.

quote:

However, my argument was that the evidence we have been presented with so far suggests an infinite universe, in that, every time we have so far defined the boundaries of the universe to be such-and-such, we have subsequently been proven wrong.

I am not so certain yet of the first statement just yet. But we'll see :-) The rest I addressed my in previous response.

quote:

but I do not see that all empircists must logically subscribe to this belief.

I am not sure that the "preponderance of evidence" is clear in this case. I argued earlier that the understanding of nature is enough for us to empirically conclude that-in all likelihood-everything that exists has a cause. Given that the sample of observed instances in which this is not true is too small to warrant otherwise.

quote:

And while you are right that a suddenly appearing infinite chain of hooks is unreasonable, an infinite chain of hooks that has always been there, are currently there and will always be there is a different matter

Ok, so let’s change the language here with the simple substitution of "hooks" with "causes" and argue this in plain English then :-) Now for every cause to be preceded by an infinite amount of causes is not a rational belief because infinite causes would make any current cause impossible to exist. In other words the series of events making up the total history of the universe must be a finite amount of causes. You reading this post can only occur if a finite amount of events preceding this occurs. If the preceding amounts of events are infinite, then this would never occur.

quote:

This is obviously a problem for the infinite side of the argument, since things that the human mind cannot successfully contemplate are rountinely dismissed as dull.

I wouldn't say that, it just seems like a fancy way of say, "just cause!". You know what I mean? The argument also suffers the issue of, "if the human mind to significant to understand the vastness of the universe," then I don't see how the human mind can be significant enough to conceive it would be. Perhaps I just insulted my own intelligence there, but I think you'll see my point :-P

quote:

Presumably, as a Christian, your next stage is to suggest that god is the cause of the universe, is it not?

This is my belief, but I have never suggested up to this point that is the case so why would you jump to that conclusion? Just out of curiosity (my attempt to not be forward, as you have said I am before, I never knew I was and now I am self conscience about it :-P I suppose philosophers tend to lose social conversation skills after a while?)

quote:

There is no empirical evidence that the universe is infinite

You are quite right that there isn't, and besides, it is logically impossible. It is impossbile that emprical evidence could be given for the totality of an infinite universe.

Not only this, but it is going to be a long, long time before anyone is able to empirically verify the existence of any universe beyond the 46.5 billion lightyears that we are currently able to see.

However, my argument was that the evidence we have been presented with so far suggests an infinite universe, in that, every time we have so far defined the boundaries of the universe to be such-and-such, we have subsequently been proven wrong. I know that this "progress" model is not very popular and doesn't stand up to a great deal of logical interrogation, but it is worth bearing in mind.

quote:

It’s not clear how an empiricist could justify inferring the existence of a cause for any event whatsoever, unless "cause" is reduced to "constant conjunction," in which case, reference to causes will have no explanatory power.

I know that this is Hume's position, but I do not see that all empircists must logically subscribe to this belief. Even if there are no concrete instances of causes, a preponderance of evidence or a strong correlation of evidence should be sufficient for someone operating under the scientific paragigm if not that of a strong empiricist (which would make this issue a great deal more difficult than it already is)

quote:

Your analogy of the hooks suffers the same problem of my boxcar analogy so, quite frankly, I don't think it’s fair to use! :-P But I'll simply answer it by pointing out that if there were no hooks then suddenly an infinite number of hooks, doesn't stand to reason.

Fair enough reasons for rejecting my example. But the difference between the hook example and the box car example is that the hooks are entirely dependent on the hooks preceeding them for suspension, whereas the box cars have, in addition to thier dependence on each other, a dependency on railway track. But, as you say, not brilliant.

And while you are right that a suddenly appearing infinite chain of hooks is unreasonable, an infinite chain of hooks that has always been there, are currently there and will always be there is a different matter.

Part of the problem with causation, as Wolfie pointed out a little while ago, is our problem with the perception of time. I experienced this problem as a child, when another child told me that the earth was a speck of dust. I argued back that, since I can see specks of dust and compare them to the size of the earth that the earth cannot be a speck of dust. What the other child meant, of course, was that the earth was a speck of dust in comparison to the size of the galaxy or of the universe. I suspect that if we don't make the univese, already, as I menntioned earlier, 46.5 billion lightyears in size, the reasonable execption to boxcar-hook type examples, then we may be falling into a dust-earth type fallacy.

quote:

Craig says:
1) The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition
2) The collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite
3) Therefore the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite

Presumably you disagree with this position, since you already quoted a scholar antagonistic to this position, but I'll see what I can do with it. I think that Premise 1) is open to the criticisms that Wolfie and I have been making these past few posts, by which I mean that the human perception of time and space is inadequate to determine exactly what the temporal series of events is in any way that can be meaningfully discussed. In a more nuanced form of this challenge, I think we might argue that time as we perceive is collected by successive addition, but that from a non-anthropocentric "universe" view, time may not be a successive addition but something that we are unable to understand. I suppose that this is also an attempted refutation of Premise 2, in that we (I on Wolfie's behalf) are denying that a collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite, as this is merely a limitation imposed on our understanding of this concept by our limited frames.

This is obviously a problem for the infinite side of the argument, since things that the human mind cannot successfully contemplate are rountinely dismissed as dull.

Presumably, as a Christian, your next stage is to suggest that god is the cause of the universe, is it not?

There is no empirical evidence that the universe is infinite, unless I am mistaken. Nor, do I suppose it ever will be. R. Douglas Geivett says of Craig’s CA:

"The empiricist may be willing to allow that for every instance-that we have so far examined-of something beginning to exist, it has a cause. But the Kalam argument needs the more general claim that for every instance-without qualification-of something beginning to exist, it has a cause. Empirical observation can't get that for us."

Hume also brings up some strong points for the empiricist. As I am sure you know. It’s not clear how an empiricist could justify inferring the existence of a cause for any event whatsoever, unless "cause" is reduced to "constant conjunction," in which case, reference to causes will have no explanatory power.

Your analogy of the hooks suffers the same problem of my boxcar analogy so, quite frankly, I don't think it’s fair to use! :-P But I'll simply answer it by pointing out that if there were no hooks then suddenly an infinite number of hooks, doesn't stand to reason.

Craig says:
1) The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition
2) The collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite
3) Therefore the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite

quote:

I am not suggesting that space and time have an "edge" but that the infinite number of events is not a reasonable belief.

But I contend that it is, beacuse the universe is a reasonable exception to boxcar type examples. If I look at some box cars on a track, I know that the track is on the ground, that the ground is finite and so on. All of my life experience, the vast majority of which has not been spent looking down railway tracks, suggests that a line of box cars have an end. However, my experience of the mathematical predictions of the size of the universe, as well as humanity's slow realisation of the actual size of the univese, suggests that the universe is indeed infinite. It is not reasonable, when we are dealing with distances that exceed our capacity to imagine hundreds and hundreds of times over, to think that an infinite number of events is unreasonable.

quote:

I suppose if you considered you reading this post to be event number one, all previous events would be negative and all future events to be positive, and presumably they would be infinite (in that the nature of numbers are infinite) although I don't think this is a fair view.

I was thinking more graphically. Imagine a vast piece of gridded graph paper. Draw two axis on it. The point at which they intersect, we call zero and then proceed to create a graph this point. This intersection human beings would call zero, but there is no mathematical difference between the intersection that we call zero, and the intersection one grid square to the left, which might as well also be one.

I don't think this is really clarifying my argument. I'll try again.

In physics, one cannot tell the difference between an action moving forward in time and an action moving backward in time - you could play the event either way and both are physically plausible. It is theoretically possible that, whilst incredibly unlikely, that by stirring some jam-filled porrige, you could separate out the jam and the porridge. Anyway, as I say, I suspect I am not making myself clear.

quote:

The principle of universal causality would suggest that the future events are caused by current events caused by past events. The principle itself suggests a prime mover, as something would have caused these events to begin.

I don't think this is necessarily so. If the universe is infinite, then there are also an infinite number of past events, which therefore do not require a single causing past event, only that there be an infinite number of events to cause these same later events. Back to the hook analogy, any individual hook merely requires that there be a hook before it, not that there be an original hook. Afterall, to the hooks, which are incapbable of knowing they are part of an infinite chain, there is no difference. There is merely the hook above and the hook below, but this does not mean that the hooks do not, in fact, go on forever. I know this sounds sort of circular, but that's because thinking about infinity is too difficult for the (very inadequate) human mind to understand and I find it almost impossible to write about.

Events are not negative or positive in revelance to time. Things just happen continously.

See, this thread isn't dead, lol.

I think your dismissal of the boxcar argument was a bit hasty. I am not suggesting that space and time have an "edge" but that the infinite number of events is not a reasonable belief.

I was following your point on the infinite numbers argument for a minute. But then I lost you. I suppose if you considered you reading this post to be event number one, all previous events would be negative and all future events to be positive, and presumably they would be infinite (in that the nature of numbers are infinite) although I don't think this is a fair view. The principle of universal causality would suggest that the future events are caused by current events caused by past events. The principle itself suggests a prime mover, as something would have caused these events to begin.

I can agree that if there must be an uncaused cause, it would have to the universe. Although I don't believe that this is the case, and I don't find this to be very informative at all.

quote:

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

That is such a good book.

I think more people have seen the movie over here though, lol. Us Americans don't read.

Men in Black, lol, I was actually thinking about that while reading some other posts.

The way I see it, if there has to be a 'first cause' what caused it to happen and then what caused that to happen and this goes on infinitely. This is why the universe has no true beginning or end. And I say true because I believe the universe goes through cycles of expansion and retraction (i cant think of a better word right now i just woke up). So right now we're 14 billion years after the turning point of expansion and maybe in billions of years the universe will implode and start expanding again. All of this is quite irrelevant because people will probably die out in a million years (maybe less). We are a relatively new and fragile (physically) species.

quote:

It is not so much that the universe can’t be infinite, but that a reasonable person wouldn't assume so.

Can I ask exactly why a reasonable person wouldn't assume this?

quote:

Is this enough for a reasonable person to assume that because no first or last box car is seen that it must be an infinite chain of box cars?

I see your point here, but this is where the strength of analogy breaks down - with the universe it is not simply a case of glancing down two rail tracks. You have telescopes that can are powerful enough to detect changes massive distances away, distances that are mind bending in themselves even before we progress onto the things that could be seen from those points that we cannot see from our current location. There is too much of a fundamental difference between the scale of our everyday experience and the scale of cosmological physics for this analogy to be convincing.

I don't know if you're Hitchhikers fans over there in the US, but the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy contains a useful gadget here - the Total Perspective Vortex. It's a torture device designed to drive anyone who looks into it quite mad as they see themselves in contrast to the entireity of the universe.

quote:

Yes, they are infinite, though they do have a beginning nevertheless

But the thing about numbers is that the beginning point is arbitrary. The numbers go off to infinity in both positive and negative directions, and if we shifted point zero up a couple of clicks to the current location of point five, no one would be able to notice the difference. The hook analogy is biased, in that when human beings conceive of a chain of hooks, they generally imagine themselves to be holding the 'first' hook, when the example requires that there be no signficiant first hook, only a series of hooks without beginning or end.

quote:

"What was the first cause?"

What is really needed here is a good dose of David Hume. He pointed out that the first cause problem is not easy to get out of, pointing out several features. He pointed out that if one thing was self causing it was rational to consider the universe to be that thing. He also pointed out that the world as it is currently extant looks more like it was designed by a team of gods, or maybe an apprentice god who practised with this universe before wandering off to make a much better one.

And then of course there's always the Men in Black argument.

Well the possibility of a God is impossible. There is not one being that controls the universe.

If there is a God (this is kind of pathetic) I think it will be like the clump of knowledge all the way out in space that Bender finds.

I do not see why one god of the universe would pick this planet to watch over when there are an infinite amount of planets. Why didn't he create life on every planet? He's God and he's lonely so why not make trillions of Edens and see who makes the most loyal followers.

I don't know. I cannot see there being an omnipotent being that controls everything. I think it will be more like the force, or reincarnation or another plane of existence.

I don't see why the comparison isn't well enough. Sure boxcars are manmade and we know their nature, though if our perception of infinitely is limited to as far as we can see then the analogy holds water.

That is the dilemma that the Kalam cosmological argument presents. "What was the first cause?"
I believe that God is the first cause.

I know this brings up the issue of, "Well what caused God?". And I logical person would ask so, but if (I am using if because like i said i haven't reasoned it out yet) the principle of universal causality isn't true then God could be cause one without justification of a cause himself.

I am sorry, but I do not think you can compare something as vast as the universe to boxcars. A reasonable person knows there is a beginning and an end to the train because they know it is a train. It is something that is man-made, therefore, we know all about it as we created it. We do not know where the universe came from, but there is most likely a logical explaination for it.

If every cause has another cause, then what made 'cause number 1' happen?

Here's an interesting thing. It shows how big the visible universe is. I love it. Zoom in all the way just to see how small we are. lolz.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/localgr.html