A Problem with Cosmological Arguments like the KCA They need…

10 comments

1. Billy Leishman says:

   April 27, 2020 at 3:44 pm

   The Laws of Physics had to exist before the Big Bang could happen, because the Big Bang used these laws to bang in the first place.
   Can tentative answers from cosmology explain why or how these abstract, immaterial laws could just mysteriously exist by themselves before any space, matter, or energy was around to use them?

   Reply
2. Scott Cone says:

   April 27, 2020 at 4:23 pm

   By universe, we mean physical reality not all that is. If we take the term universe to mean “all that exists” then God Himself would be included in the category of universe.

   Any physical universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. This was proven by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Velienkin in 2003. this proof holds regardless of the physical descrption of the early universe. The Borde-Guth-Bilenkin theorem impllies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a co-called multiverse composed of many universes, the multiverse must have a beginning.

   Vilenkin said this:
   “…cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. Ther is no escape: thye have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. ”

   The second law of thermodyamics tell us that is the universe were truly eternal in its existence, then all the energy in it would already have been evenly distributed and it would have made life impossible and in fact, all further change in the state of the universe would also be impossible.

   Since space-time/matter-energy come into existence at a point in the past it is a temporal effect brought about by an non-temporal, spaceless, immaterial cause. By this, we mean whatever causes the universe must necessarily be outside the physical universe to avoid the logical contradiction of self-creation. Whatever causes the universe must necessarily transcend space-time/matter-energy. It has to be in and of itself. It has to be self-existent.

   Naturalists propose that whatever is self-existent could be impersonal forces. But, you cannot get a temporal effect (the universe) from a timeless cause that is impersonal. The reason for this is because if the cause of the universe were a set of necessary, mechanically operating forces existing eternally, then if they exist eternally, the effect they product would also exist eternally. How could the cause exist without its effect if it’s truly sufficient to produce its effect? The only way to explain how you get a temporal effect from an eternal cause is if the cause possesses agency, the ability to freely will and spontaneously bring about a new effect without any antecedent determining conditions.

   This leaves us not with just a first uncaused cause of the universe but its personal creator. We’ve already seen the attributes of this personal creator are self-existence, eternity, immateriality, immutability (assumed as a logical extension of eternal self-existence and immateriality), immense power and because it’s personal, we can also know at a minimum it must possess something like a self-aware mind to explain the existence of a self-aware mind in any part of its creation (us). You can’t have something in the effect that isnt first in the cause. You can certainly have more in the cause than is in the effect but not less.

   Reply
3. Samuel Johnson says:

   April 27, 2020 at 4:41 pm

   You are in the business of wanting to help sharpen Christian apologetics, lol? You are very strange indeed.

   Reply
4. Dale Johnson says:

   April 27, 2020 at 4:58 pm

   The Universe and all creation is a miracle and atheist don’t believe in miracles. Right? Discussion over. ?

   Reply
5. Yeap Kim Hock says:

   April 27, 2020 at 6:19 pm

   Why is there something instead of nothing?
   Atheists believe in a material Universe. Material cannot bring itself into existence. The opposite of material is immaterial.
   Atheists believe that everything came into existence by accident with no purpose. The opposite is that an intelligent being made a conscious decision to bring the Universe into existence.
   Therefore an immaterial and intelligent being created the Universe. We call him God.

   Reply
6. Caleb Jackson says:

   April 27, 2020 at 8:13 pm

   I believe Craig uses arguments supporting the incoherent of infinity. So even if there is a multiverse or existence beyond our current universe, it still can’t be infinite. He also used physics like the BGV theorum to support this., Which states that in the universe that is expanding must have a space time again meaning (including a multiverse)

   There are Cosmological arguments like Leibiniz’s that don’t require a beginning to the universe.

   Reply
7. Vic Clement says:

   April 27, 2020 at 8:51 pm

   Ed Atkinson, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. Cosmological arguments, especially KCA, don’t lead to God. They only lead to an intelligent, powerful, and personal creator. The God of the Bible is one possibility. But proving that is a different exercise.

   Reply
8. Jerry Spencer says:

   April 27, 2020 at 11:06 pm

   It’s often stated in this manner: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

   There’s nothing in the premises or in the conclusion that says anything about a God.

   Reply
9. Ady Vancea says:

   April 28, 2020 at 1:00 pm

   We can define the universe any way you want. ( for this argument). I don’t care. As long as something exists, God Must exist.
   It’s a matter of Logic, and Logic is the mother of all sciences.
   The attributes of God are also logically derived:

   Reply
10. Andre van der Sandt says:

    April 29, 2020 at 2:53 am

    Ed Atkinson
    I do not see how a definition of “Universe” makes any difference to the argument EXCEPT as an attempt at deflection by the atheist.

    1. If “Universe” is defined as “everything that came into existence as a result of the BB” then the KCA unavoidably implies a First Mover, or a Cause, or a Necessary Terminator to Contingency and to Infinite Regress. Call it what you like.

    2. But if “Universe” is defined in philosophical terms as “everything non-God that exists,” then one needs to prove that there are non-physical (non-material, non-Spacetime) entities that are also “non-God,” and one also needs to explain *their* origins, but these entities cannot be addressed by the KCA.

    I think the Theist will always define “Universe” as in 1. above. Whereas I suspect that the atheist will tend to deflect to 2. because there’s no other way that he can avoid the thrust of the KCA, and he will otherwise be unable to refute it.

    As an aside, the only entities I can think of that are both “non-God” as well as “non-Spacetime” would be abstract concepts such numbers. These do not come into existence, and are not created, and exist whether God exists or not.
    Things like angels and demons and spirits are irrelevant to the argument because their origins have nothing to do with the KCA or with Spacetime.

    Reply