Kalam cosmological argument & Refutation

In summary, the Kalam cosmological argument does not establish that the universe began to exist, but it does show that the universe cannot be infinite in size and must have a beginning.)In summary, the Kalam cosmological argument does not establish that the universe began to exist, but it does show that the universe cannot be infinite in size and must have a beginning.
  • #1
heusdens
1,738
0
Anyone familiar with the Kalam cosmoligical argument, and has a valid refutation.

[I have one, will post it later on]

For Kalam cosmological argument, see Wikipedia
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, it is my understanding that the Big bang is not the 'beginning of the universe' in any ontological sense, at least no theory supports that.
 
  • #3
Jarle said:
Well, it is my understanding that the Big bang is not the 'beginning of the universe' in any ontological sense, at least no theory supports that.

True. In any case the BBT itself does not claim that. The problem is however that in popular narrations about the BBT, it is often been depicted as if that would be the case. And to add to that, some scientists have even posited that the Big bang meant the "begin of time" and that there was no "before the big bang". E.g. Roger Penrose. Although later, he retreated from that position.

But there is also another part in the argument that is plainly wrong.
 
  • #4
The article doesn't really present his arguments in their entirety though, so it's hasty to call any of the seemingly odd positions wrong before reading the whole discussion. I don't think you should be delaying what you got on your mind any more.
 
  • #5
Jarle said:
The article doesn't really present his arguments in their entirety though, so it's hasty to call any of the seemingly odd positions wrong before reading the whole discussion. I don't think you should be delaying what you got on your mind any more.

Ok.

Well this Kalam Cosmological argument is put forward mainly by Mr. Lain Craig.

His crucial argument is that past time cannot be eternal, since an "actual infinite" can not exist, hence the universe must have ""once" begun.

(quote from A Defense of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God)
The more controversial premise is the second one: that the universe began to exist. And in support of this premise I present two philosophical arguments, and then two scientific confirmations of those arguments. The first philosophical argument, (2.1), is the argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite, and it runs like this: (2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist. (2.12) An infinite temporal regress of the events is an actual infinite. (2.13) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Now in order to grasp this argument it's important to distinguish an actual infinite from a potential infinite. An actual infinite is a collection of things having a proper subset which has the same number of members as the original collection itself. An actual infinite is not like a potential infinite, which is a collection which is at every point in time finite but is growing toward infinity as a limit. My argument is simply that an actual infinite cannot exist. I do not deny the existence of a potential infinite.

Why do I hold to (2.11)? Well, very simply this: if you try to translate the idea of an actually infinite number of things into reality, you wind up with all sorts of absurdities and, in the end, logical contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically you get self–contradictory answers, unless you impose some wholly arbitrary rules to prevent this. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, who is perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."{5} So as I understand the actual infinite, it is simply a conceptual idea; it is not something that exists in reality. (2.12) says, an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. I think this is fairly obvious. If the universe never began to exist, then the number of past events is actually infinite. And therefore it follows: (2.13) that an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. Therefore, the temporal regress of events is finite and must have a beginning. Since the universe is not distinct from the temporal series of past events, it therefore follows that the universe began to exist.

The second philosophical argument is the argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. This argument is independent of the first. It's claiming that even if an actual infinite can exist, it cannot be formed by successive addition. And this argument goes this way: (2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. (2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. (2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. The first step in the argument, a collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite, is true by the very nature of infinity. You can never get to infinity by addition because you can always add one more. Sometimes this is called the impossibility of counting to infinity, or another way it's referred to is the impossibility of traversing the infinite. Now if the past were infinite, it would be as though someone had claimed to have just finished counting down all the negative numbers ending in "0," and surely this is absurd. If you can't count to infinity, how can you count down from infinity? If you can't traverse an infinite distance by running in one direction, how can you traverse it by simply turning around and running in the opposite direction?

Indeed, the idea that the past could be actually infinite is absurd. I think this is well illustrated by the Tristram Shandy paradox of Bertrand Russell. Russell imagines Tristram Shandy, a character in a novel by Sterne, who writes his autobiography so slowly that it takes him a year to write down the events of a single day. Russell says that if Tristram Shandy were to live forever, then his autobiography would be completed because there would be an infinite number of years and an infinite number of days, so that every day would be written about. It seems to me that this conclusion is incorrect because the future is a potential infinite only. Tristram Shandy would never arrive at actual infinity. The number of days and hence the number of years of his life would always be finite but potentially increasing toward infinity as a limit. But suppose we turn this story around and imagine that Tristram Shandy has been writing from eternity past. Then the number of years and the number of days would in fact be actually infinite, and you could say that Tristram Shandy would have completed his autobiography. But if you say that Tristram Shandy would have completed his autobiography, then the question arises: Why did he finish it today rather than yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that? By any time in the past, an infinite amount of time had already elapsed, so that if Tristram Shandy would finish his autobiography given infinite time, he should have already finished at any point in the finite past. But that means that no matter how far back in the past you regress, you will never find Tristram Shandy writing, which contradicts the hypothesis that he has been writing his autobiography from eternity. And thus the notion of an infinite past, it seems to me, is absurd.

That leads to the second premise, that a temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. Again, I think this point is obvious. The series of past events is a collection which has been formed by one event occurring after another, by successive addition. But that leads to the conclusion: therefore, the series of past events cannot be actually infinite. It must be finite, and the universe must have begun to exist.

Again, this argument was agreed to by both Hume and Kant. In his Enquiry, Chapter 12, Section II, paragraph 125, Hume writes, "An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it."{6} Hume tries to elude what he calls the absurdities and contradictions of this by embracing a nominalist view of numbers and abstract objects. Now I’m very much in sympathy with that view, but clearly it does nothing to solve the problem of how a temporal series of real past events could have been formed by successive addition and yet be infinite. And, as is well known, Kant as well, in the thesis of his first antinomy concerning time, also endorses this argument. Kant writes,
If we assume that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed and there has passed away in the world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world–series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence.{7}

And it can't be emphasized enough that, according to Kant, this is an undeniable requirement of reason. Reason forces you to that conclusion, on Kant's view. Of course, he also believed that reason forced you to adopt the antithesis as well, but I think that the argument for the antithesis is simply a faulty argument. It erroneously assumes that time necessarily precedes the beginning of the universe; but on a non–Newtonian relational view of time, time begins simultaneously with the first event. So there's simply no problem about when the universe would have begun to exist in the empty time prior to the beginning of the universe. So again, it seems to me that this argument is a forceful and persuasive argument, which both Hume and Kant, in effect, concede.

So, let's examine this argument. The way mr. Lain Craig "constructs" his argument against this "actual" infinite is as follows. Imagine the time line, and place somewhere the point "now". Now, he argues, there can not have elapsed an "actual infinity" of time. Therefore, he argues, time must have begun.

The only problem here is that we might ask the question: where (from what point) on the timeline, did he start counting time, in order to conclude that the time elapsed since then, can not be an "actual infinite". The point is, wherever he has placed that point, he already denies that time is infinite, and smuggles in the premise that which he was supposed to proof, namely that time had a beginning. For wherever he places the point, it can of course never be an "actual infinite" amount of time prior to now. The distance between any two points on an infinite line - wherever you place the points - yields a finite distance, always, no matter how far away you place the points. Yet this does not in any way "proof" the line itself to be finite, since we can always place the points further apart, and show that there is no upper limit, with which we have shown that - indeed - the line is infinite.

The "actual infinite" as such - as an actual amount (or duration) of time already elapsed - does not exist, since taking an actual measure of duration requires us to place two distinct points on the timeline in order to be measurable. However that does not proof time to have started at some point. Indeed, if the timeline itself is infinite, there is no such point at which time began, so we never can have a measure of the distance between that point and 'now', which is the simple consequence of the fact that we defined the timeline to be infinite (= having no start or end).

PS.
And as a remark. notice how Mr. Lain Craig uses the half-sided argument of Kant, and denies the other half, in which Kant exactly argues for the other side of the argument, in which he concludes that it is impossible for time to have begun ...

PS.2
A very similar debate was the refutation of Friedrich Engels against the "world schematism" of Herr Duhring in the Anti-Duhring, in chapter Time and Space.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Looks like you've put some serious thought into this. I don't get this part though:
heusdens said:
The "actual infinite" as such - as an actual amount (or duration) of time already elapsed - does not exist, since taking an actual measure of duration requires us to place two distinct points on the timeline in order to be measurable.

How do you reconcile 'time is without beginning or end' with 'there is no infinite duration'? Are you saying its duration is entirely dependent on our measurement of it?

I'm guessing you have/adhere to a particular theory of time which makes this argument work. Perhaps you could share that with me?
 
Last edited:

What is the Kalam cosmological argument?

The Kalam cosmological argument is a philosophical and theological argument for the existence of God. It is based on the idea that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, and that the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe must have a cause, which is God.

What are the main premises of the Kalam cosmological argument?

The main premises of the Kalam cosmological argument are:

  • Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
  • The universe began to exist.
  • The universe must have a cause.
  • That cause is God.

What are some common refutations of the Kalam cosmological argument?

Some common refutations of the Kalam cosmological argument include the idea that the concept of causality may not apply to the universe as a whole, the possibility of an infinite regress of causes, and the argument that the cause of the universe may not necessarily be a sentient being like God.

Can the Kalam cosmological argument be used to prove the existence of God?

No, the Kalam cosmological argument cannot definitively prove the existence of God. It is simply one argument among many for the existence of a higher power, and its validity is still heavily debated among philosophers and theologians.

Are there any weaknesses in the Kalam cosmological argument?

Like any argument, the Kalam cosmological argument has its weaknesses. Some critics argue that it relies on flawed assumptions and does not provide a definitive answer to the existence of God. Others point out potential logical fallacies within the argument itself.

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
837
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
17
Views
939
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
749
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
297
Replies
92
Views
4K
  • Sticky
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top