ComestibleVenom

Well, as far as current scientific theories go, we HAVE in fact seen many such instances. However, those cases require no cause and the syllogism is therefore unsound.

Shadowy Man

How about number 2: "The universe began to exist."

What is the "truth value" of this premise?

Emily

i asked my freind who is a beleiver and she said"noone he has lived forever, know what your talking about"

Wiploc

I'll have to get back to you. I'm liable to be offline for the next month. (I'm sure I'll be in withdrawal.)
crc

wordsmyth

If the creation of the universe was the goal of a conscious and eternal being, then why wouldn't the age of the universe be indeterminate to us. (i.e. the universe should appear to be eternal as well)

I can accept that there may be a cause for the universe that we simply have not discovered yet, but it is a huge side-step of logic to assume the cause is both conscious and eternal.

History documents that conscious beings were often assumed to be the cause of events for which there was no other explanation. Thunder, lightning, floods, earthquakes, etc., etc., etc. Assumptions about conscious, supernatural causes for events have repeatedly been shown to be fallacious and I see no reason to believe that if a cause for the universe should be discovered that this will change.

ex-xian

You have to define causation, in this case. The most coherent definition has been given by Hume; in this definition, the cause and effect must be temporally related. In that case of the beginning of the universe, the cause and effect would not be temporally related, since time did not begin until the creation of the universe. So, by Hume's definition, you syllogism is invalid.

Wiploc

Turns out I haven't left town yet, so I can address this.

This is your Kalam, I think:

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

I think your use of the word "universe" is slippery, tricky. It is like dividing by X when X=0; you know you can't divide by 0, but if you divide by X, maybe people won't notice you are doing an illegal move.

After all that, I ought to be able to articulate what I think is wrong with your move, right? I wish. But with a minor change, I'll bet I can produce an argument you like as little as I like the KCA:

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

We're not talking about the truth of the premises here, just validity. This argument is in valid form if the KCA is in valid form.

In the KCA, you arbitrarily define the universe as not including god. If you can do that, I can arbitrarily define it as not including my left hand:

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

That looks an awful lot like your KCA, but instead of proving that god created the universe, it proves that my left hand created the universe. Okay, it doesn't really prove anything because it is just a word trick; but it is the same word trick as the KCA, and it must therefore be exactly as persuasive as the KCA.

crc

Normal

Sorry to jump in, but the KCA only implies that creation ex nihilo is impossible, it makes no assumptions about what the cause actually is. If the KCA concept is correct, then whatever created the universe is "meta-physical", and a naturalistic interpretation of reality is insufficient. It could of been god, your left hand, or a server crash, but whatever the cause was it existed outside of the known universe.

fishbulb

As a matter of principle (well, OK, as a matter of time constraints and practicality) I don't tend to discuss arguments where no prima facia case has been made for the validity of the premises. Nor do I tend to take the initiative and evaluate a premise that has been advanced with no support behind it. Burden of proof and all. So,

Point 3 is a conclusion drawn from the first two points. The syllogism is sound (and trite), but so are lots of syllogisms whose conclusions are known to be untrue, so the argument itself is uninteresting.

I do not believe that points 1 or 2 are worth discussing because, on the face of it, niether appears as though it will lead to any fruitful conclusions, and I have better things to do than chase wild geese. If, however, you can make a case that there is evidence for either of those two assertions, you would undoubtedly pique my interest.

Wiploc

I don't think that follows. Let's consider the question of whether causes precede effects:

The KCA assumes for no very good reason that the universe (including time) had a beginning. If causes precede effects, then time cannot have a cause, since nothing can come before time.

If, on the other hand, causes need not precede effects, then the KCA doesn't require an outside-the-universe cause, since the cause could be something later in the universe.

Therefore, regardless of whether causes precede effects, the KCA doesn't require an outside-the-universe cause.
crc