The Kalam Cosmological Argument Exposed

[Deathraider]

What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

The argument goes as follow:

1. Everything that began to exist must have a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. The universe must have a cause.

So what's the issue?

Absolutely nothing....

😐...

🤣 Did I get you there? Admit it, I got you.

But the flaws about this argument is that the first premise is flawed. The reason why is because things in physics don't begin to exist, per se. The conservation of mass means things form from other things already around.

Not to mention, it assumes that things that began must have a cause. In quantum mechanics, it has not been shown there is a cause to radioactive decay. Now some people, like William Craig, may bring up that there is a cause, just a Non predetermined, probabilistic one. If that was the case, than the argument itself just falls apart. Why can't our universe have that kind of cause?

Furthermore, we don't know if the universe had a beginning. Something might've existed before that. We do not know what happened before 10^-43 seconds. Assuming it's a god is flawed because it can be many other possibilities such as the universe may have existed in a steady state beforehand, the universe may be a result of the death of another universe, or something else. We don't know. The thing we do know is if there was something before the Big Bang, it wouldn't affect the things that came after.

I'll see you next time!

[jacquesvol]

1. Everything that began to exist must have a cause.
2. Thus IF a god exists, it had a beginning.
3. The gods must have a cause.
4. what created gods?

[genericname85]

it's so funny how christians can't accept the universe was always there but accepting that god was is so easy to them xD

[strateguy632]

That is not logic that is impossible. It would be endless to expected a caused for a spirit god.

[strateguy632]

In simpler words 'you can't included a spirit god' in the category 'things that began to exist".

[ladsin]

Plus the WLC version of the Kalam doesn’t even have a god in any of the premises or conclusion.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Well we have to prove the universe was initially stable at first.

Its kind of a shoulder shrug, ie the tons of possibilities.

We also dont know what affect the initial universe had on the Big Bang, so its a bit odd to say that the initial universe had no impact on the Big bang for lack of evidence.

We dont know until we discover the pieces and timeline of what happened.

God is just one of those possibilities we are currently exploring amongst many.

I dont agree with claiming God without tangible evidence, but its also a leap to reject it when there are flaws on the other possibilities as well.

Atheists throw a lot of easily google-able info out there, but make the same claims like theists do.

We dont know lol

So both theism and atheism are just opinions not fact.

Lol science, especially here is not even 100%, which is why science reiterate that its not factual.

Odd that people who like 100% facts, cling to something that directly tells them is not 100% factual.

Why atheists go out their way to fight with God Theory is the same as Jehovah Witnesses knocking on your door to say... we kinda dont really know yet.

Lol theists and atheists are like phaternal twins.

[jacquesvol]

@dancing_in_nebulas Why would atheists fight something existing only in the heads of religious people?

[John_Doesnt]

The Universe actually exists on the back of a Space Turtle according to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
i.pinimg.com/.../...d3133--work-spaces-turtles.jpg

[jacquesvol]

Indeed a wise priest told me that.

[TripleAce]

Cause and consquence is a product of our universe. Within out boundaries. We already know that breaks down inside a black hole at the point of singularity

Cause and consquences doesn't need to exist outside of our universe. And why would
It...

[David32]

nice take. nice invite. how about a nice mho & follow😉

[strateguy632]

Maybe it was stable? 'Steady state' if so it would remain stable unless god changed it. Someone changed energy into protons and someone made the energy.

[genericname85]

1. everything that began to exist must have a cause. correct.
2. the universe had a beginning. we don't know that.
3 the universe must have a cause. we can't assume that, since we don't know 2.

[genericname85]

you see in order to get from your point 1. to point 2. you omitted a step.

1. everything that began to exist must have a cause.
2. the universe had a beginning because [reason for that assertion belongs here]
3. therefore it also must have a cause

this is how you would properly make that argument. we don't know that the universe began. all we know is that "everything that we can observe with our senses expanded from a certain point" that doesn't conclude that before that was noting... i mean how can "nothing" even "be"? xD it makes no sense.

[Deathraider]

I mean we don't know if everything that began to exist has a cause. I mean the notion of cause and effect breaks down when you're talking about things like radioactive decay. There's no way you can determine when a single isotope would decay.

[genericname85]

Your very first claim was that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Did you suddenly stop believing that or where did this assertion suddenly go?

Yeah you can xD that's why we are able to use atom breakdowns to freaking measure time dude... And even if we can not measure certain things, that means it must be god. It means we can not measure, therefore we can not know. Asserting it is god needs individual evidence and can not be concluded from the fact that we don't know cause that's the age old argument from ignorance fallacy.

[Deathraider]

To be clear, I'm not asserting a god exist. And I know you aren't either.

I'm just saying that everything that begin to exist must have a cause is also not true.

We can measure a sample of isotope and know it's half life, meaning when half the sample would decay, but not determine when a single isotope decays.

[genericname85]

haha yeah which means we just don't know.

[Deathraider]

So we agree?

[genericname85]

yes :)

[genericname85]

i was just correcting how the fallatious claim that you also disagree with "would" have made sense xD i don't think it does make sense :D

[katthewolf]

I'm honestly happy enough to observe... Probably will never learn the cause of it all in my lifetime. Still, an interesting subject to ponder.

[StrawberryArabesque]

Hello, very nice take! It was super interesting!

[ZELLxoxo]

Interesting, nice take

[captainw0ww]

Super interesting. I really like this take

[Penelope_]

Nice take! Very interesting!

[Whatthefluff]

I think there are multiple universes

[Warmapplecrumble]

I agree with you.

[OfDeath]

Hahaha! You got me man

[Anonymous]

Great