Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Kalam Cosmological Argument part two
The following might be some fairly obvious observations to some. But they completely blow my mind, and I think they further show the problems with the KCA as a logical argument.
Premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument states that “the universe began to exist.” Then it supposes that it must, therefore, have had a cause.
The problem with this is that the universe has always existed. Remember, we are assuming the view that the universe had a beginning and that it was the beginning of all matter, space and time (though in reality this is just one way of viewing the origin of the universe).
“But wait”, you might say, “the universe had a beginning. It has not always been here.”
But “the universe had a beginning” and “the universe has always been here” are not mutually exclusive. I might ask, “When did the universe not exist?” and the answer (assuming our premises) is NEVER. The universe has never not existed. Therefore the universe has always existed. What the beginning tells us is simply that our concept of “always” is not infinite, but can be measured - at least into the past.
This is completely bizarre, I know. But everything is when we consider the origin of space, time and matter!
The KCA seems to subtly imply that time did not ACTUALLY begin to exist at the beginning, but rather that there must have been some time before in which God created the universe. But there was nothing before the beginning. Conservative theists trying to “prove” God logically often claim that He therefore exists “outside of time.” We’ll get more into that in part 3, but for part 2 it is enough to show that the universe has always been here, and that it’s beginning is far different than anything else that has had a beginning inside the universe.
Conclusion - There has never been a time that the universe did not exist. The second after it came into existence, the universe had always existed. And it has still always existed. The KCA seems to have refer to the universe’s lack of infinity, rather than to the beginning as an event, for its argument. We'll get to that later. Thanks for reading!