[Piprod01]

The problem I think is that although in arguments like Kalam there is an attempt to avoid a taxi-cab problem - taking the argument only so far as suits your position then getting off - that's what it ultimately boils down to.

The major problem with Kalam isn't that God needs explaining, it's that there is no reason to to get in the taxi-cab in the first place.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Раскольников)
It just seems pretty flawed to me. We are saying that everything must have a cause and coming to the conclusion that we have to have some necessary object which is exempt from causality. Surely this just implies some problem with the idea of causality? How can we even know that everything must have a cause? This seems to be based on observation but not everything is known and has been observed. In fact, P itself requires that not everything does need a cause (as it exempts itself from that), in which case why should only one thing not be caused?

The need for P arises from the problem of infinite regress. The Kalam argument revolves around beginnings. If the universe is infinite then an infinite number of actual moments have passed since the universe began, but since you can't add extra moments to an infinite series (and we appear to have extra moments - time always moves forward) there must have been a beginning. The very definition of God (P here) is that He need not have a cause. This may seem like a get out clause, but if all existence were contingent and had to rely on one necessary being, that necessary being would have to be God by its very definition. The idea of an uncaused universe runs counter to human experience, and this is true even for quantum fluctuations.

[Раскольников]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
The need for P arises from the problem of infinite regress. The Kalam argument revolves around beginnings. If the universe is infinite then an infinite number of actual moments have passed since the universe began, but since you can't add extra moments to an infinite series (and we appear to have extra moments - time always moves forward) there must have been a beginning.

Clearly we only experience the present, or only experience one time at any one time. But this is the same as saying we only experience one point in space at one point in space. The problem is that time is our reference point. If it isn't used as our reference point and we try to imagine the universe as though outside of it then problem ceases to be a problem. So you can see that there is an infinite series but it isn't that things are being added to it, it all just exists (clearly language fails to convey what I mean here as it is so tied up with time anyway). Time only moves forward because we are observing events and moments over time. If causality holds, then although we only experience the present and remember the past, being unable to have knowledge of our future experiences in the same way as the past is a problem of how things work in time and the thermodynamics that make time only work in one direction so to speak, rather than an issue of the future not being real. If we accept the future as real then there is no longer an issue of adding moments.

It isn't easy to be clear here unfortunately. But imagine that at any given point in time there is a certain amount (or infinitely much) space that exists. In the same way, at any given point in space there is a certain amount (or infinitely much) time that exists (the problem here is that verbs use temporal tenses instead of spatial ones so there is no accurate way to convey the concept).

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
This may seem like a get out clause

Well it just seems to be a contradiction. So either the reasoning is faulty (although it seems like it isn't) or the axioms we are using are wrong. The whole argument seems to be more of an argument against causality than for God.

[TauMuon]

(Original post by Ahopes)
How can it claim to prove the existence of God when all it states is that everything must have a cause? Surely it is equally, if not (in my opinion) more viable that the original cause was the Big Bang, not God.

I'm pretty sure there isn't any argument that can prove the existance of a god

[DarkTitan]

(Original post by Ahopes)
How can it claim to prove the existence of God when all it states is that everything must have a cause? Surely it is equally, if not (in my opinion) more viable that the original cause was the Big Bang, not God.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

It does't exactly prove god but it does make sense if it were.

It leads to that one "thing" that is independent i.e not of this universe or any other. It is not dependent on a single thing, no laws or constants, for it to be able to start of the chain of reactions we observe today.

You can label it what ever you want from this point. A hippo, an atom, your dandruff. Just makes more sense for it to be god rather than anything else.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by DarkTitan)
Just makes more sense for it to be god rather than anything else.

Not really. The word 'God' usually implies a theistic God i.e one that intervenes in the universe. Nothing says that the start of the universe has to be concious, caring or anything for that matter. Except for the fact that the universe began from it.

[DarkTitan]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Not really. The word 'God' usually implies a theistic God i.e one that intervenes in the universe. Nothing says that the start of the universe has to be concious, caring or anything for that matter. Except for the fact that the universe began from it.

Which is exactly what I said...

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by DarkTitan)
Which is exactly what I said...

my apologies It's just that the word god holds too much unnecessary stuff with it.