Further Thoughts on the Kalam Cosmological Argument

I previously wrote a piece criticising several aspects of the renowned Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument, for the uninitiated, goes as follows:

P1          Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2          The Universe began to exist
C            The Universe has a cause

The piece I initially wrote aimed to demonstrate that while P1 may appear to be true at face value, it avoids mentioning fairly crucial information concerning the nature of causality as we know it, namely the essential component that is time. I argue that based on the knowledge that we do have about causality, it doesn't seem to make much sense to discuss causality in an environment where time is not present (for example before the Universe existed). While this is not a positive argument disproving the fact that atemporal causality exists, it is a reminder that the Kalam Cosmological Argument uses premises that assume knowledge that we do not possess. In other words, the truth of P1 (as a universal principle) has not been sufficiently justified.

However, when you actually think about what P1 claims, you (should) quickly realise that it isn't even an intuitive premise, be it true or not, which is what it seems to rely on heavily. First off, let me briefly outline how most theists or deists try to support P1. They usually try to make it seem like its veracity is obvious by saying things like "I exist, but there was a point in time at which I did not exist. I therefore began to exist at some point in time, and I must have had a cause" (1).

Notice that in seeking to justify P1 of the KCA, the line of thought is empirical and inductive: it seeks information from the real observable universe and makes an inductive inference to arrive at a given conclusion based on this information. Now as I have already written about in my previous text, the problem with an argument using premises that are the result of inductive reasoning is that giant leaps are made very quickly, and the veracity of the conclusion (which is later used as a premise) tends not to be guaranteed, and if it is true, it is only true in certain contexts meaning it can't be used as a universal principle.

I explained how the context of P1 of the KCA is too narrow to arrive at a universal principle in the conclusion, but let me now attempt to show why the premise itself is devoid of all meaning, by attacking its defence (see 1).

Was there really a point in time at which you didn't exist? Before you jump to any conclusions, let me assure you that I am not trying to invoke the fairly popular woo-woo mumbo-jumbo idea that we as conscious beings are eternal because consciousness isn't physical and as such isn't dependent on time blabla... No. I am asking you to take a moment to reflect on what we actually know about the nature of physical things and causality.

Take a chair for instance. One would have you believe that at some point in time there was no chair, but only its constitutive wooden parts, and that after a sequence of causal mechanisms (a craftsman assembling the parts) it becomes a chair. Is this really the case though? To explain why this seemingly obvious line of thought is missing a key point about the nature of reality, let me ask you one more weird question. What is a chair really?

You didn't think I was actually going to give you enough context to understand what sort of answer I am expecting from you? Of course not, this piece of writing is just an act of narcissism to distract myself from the miserably boring world I live in.

So what is a chair really? Well, if you ignore any answer that is an extension of our subjective assessment of what a chair is, such as its label (it's a piece of furniture), its function (it's made for sitting on, mostly) , its appearance (it has a certain number of legs, a base and a back), its value (it's very useful and I would probably be miserable without one) etc. (notice that none of these qualities of the chair actually describe what the chair in fact is) what you are left with is the objective reality of what a chair really is: a massive collection of matter and energy, arranged with a specific configuration. The configuration this matter and energy has, defines how we label it, what we use it for, how we perceive it and how we value it, but at its core, what the chair is is just stuff.

So what am I getting at here? Do you recall that law of thermodynamics stating that energy can not be created or destroyed, only transformed from one state to another? Has the chair really ever not existed? When it was a tree, did it not exist? Did the matter and energy not exist then? Did the matter and energy pop into existence randomly from nothing between the tree stage and the chair stage, because that is clearly impossible according to some (let's assume for their sake that they are right). The chair - what the chair really is  - has always existed, in some form or another. Yes, the configuration has changed, but the stuff hasn't changed.

You can apply this line of reasoning to everything you see around you.

So what does this imply? Does everything that begins to exist have a cause? I'm sorry, could you kindly supply me with these countless examples of things that "begin to exist", because I have some bad news for you, theists and deists. If you want your P1 to have any meaning, you must admit to things (or as I eloquently put it "stuff") coming into existence without any prior constituents, which sounds an awful lot like the very concept you have already firmly established is impossible: something can not come from nothing.

In conclusion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument tries to prove specific qualities about the beginning of the Universe (a rare event that we know little about) by taking examples from the Universe (common events that we know a lot about). I've shown how the things we think began to exist, didn't really begin to exist at all, which means the only thing (that I am aware of) that did begin to exist, is the Universe.

What does this make the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

P1          [Everything that begins to exist] has a cause.

I've shown that the only example we have of an event belonging to the set denoted in square brackets is in fact the Universe itself, rendering "The Universe" and "Everything that begins to exist" synonymous,  so the argument turns into something like the following.

P1          The Universe has a cause.

P2          The Universe began to exist.

C             The Universe has a cause.

Which is circular reasoning, so fix your argument.

Check (mate?).

I don't feel it's necessary to debunk any of the other theistic claims and arguments (common ones include the teleological argument and the moral argument), because as far as I'm concerned I don't really have a reason to believe the Universe had a creator in the first place.

Loaded Questions and the First Cause Argument for the Existence of God

The holidays are soon over, and it's time to get serious again. I am now assuming that you have been less serious during the holidays, which I'm sure will apply to most of you, yet there might be one or two of you (and I really have no clue who "you" is, or are) who have been just as serious, if not even more serious, during the holidays than before. Enough verbal diarrhoea, let's get to the point.

Part of growing up, for most people, is about questioning your own existence, your own assumptions, whether what you believe is true can be justified, and of course whether what other people think is true is in fact justifiable. The process involves a lot of arduous thinking, at least when you get to the more complex questions, which is why some people might not make it past the "are red dresses really more sexually appealing than blue dresses?"-stage. In my opinion, red goes with brunette and blue goes with blonde, but I digress.

As you have probably guessed from the title, this post is about loaded questions, or questions with ammunition if you like. Why? Because by knowing when a question is loaded, you might realise that the question you are about to ask is presumptuous and might need to be preceded by a less presumptuous question before you ask the loaded question, if you are to ask said loaded question at all. We all come across loaded questions all the time, because they save time in the long run, but when you are discussing topics of importance it's important to be aware of them. Here's a couple of loaded questions, ranging from strikingly obviously loaded to less obviously loaded.

1. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

In this case, not only does the question assume that you have been beating your wife, but no matter what your answer is, it will confirm the mentioned assumption. Of course you could throw your leather glove on the ground in front of whoever asked you such a question and answer "that's a loaded question, and I think we should discuss this matter with a pair of rapiers by the graveyard tomorrow at noon", but that would hardly be an answer to the question. It would be your reaction, nothing more. It was a yes or no question, and your noble attitude doesn't change that fact. This is how the question should be phrased:

- Do you have a wife?

- If yes, have you at any point been beating her?

- If yes, have you stopped beating her?

2. Who killed my brother?

Well, the two assumptions in this question are that your brother is dead, and that an agent killed him (by agent I am not referring to a trained government assassin, but a person who has intentions and means of fulfilling these intentions with an action). Well, it also assumes that you had a brother in the first place, but I guess all loaded questions tend to assume that you aren't delusional... This is how the question should be phrased:

- Do I have a brother? (I just had to)

- If yes, is he dead?

- If yes, was he killed?

- If yes, by whom?

3. What is your favourite colour?

Seems fairly innocent, doesn't it? Well shut up because it's still a loaded question. Stop crying, I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. Anyway, it assumes that you have a favourite colour. This is how the question should be phrased:

- Do you have a favourite colour?

- If yes, what is it?

4. What caused the Universe to begin to exist?

This is the pinnacle of our tedious journey of nitpicking. It seems like the most basic question you can ask, but it is still a loaded question. First of all, it assumes that the Universe began to exist (it did), but it also assumes that something caused it to exist. Now before you pull down your pants and come running at me with fiery torches, hear me out. This is how the question should be phrased:

- Did the Universe begin to exist?

- If yes, did anything cause the Universe to exist?

- If yes, what was it?

Now, this is where anyone who believes in a Creator thinks skipping the second question is OK. Somehow, they assume that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Sure, that would seem extremely intuitive, and is the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but it still has not sought out to prove that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. For anyone who pursues the question of the existence of the Universe honestly, it is obvious that if the answer to the second question is no, the third question becomes meaningless. But if you're religious, you would probably use Newton's third law (N3) as a means of demonstrating that because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then obviously every effect (opposite reaction) must have a cause (action). Sure, but you must here assume that the Universe is an effect, and not merely a cause - the first cause, which is according to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity a distinct possibility, or in fact a necessity. 

N3 assumes, unless I am horribly mistaken, that as long as there is a time vector then every cause has an effect. (It states that time and space started at the Big Bang) The premise is not "everything that begins to exist has a cause", it should be "everything that begins to exist and is not preceded by anything with respect to time, has a cause". Time is a necessity when talking about causality. A cause must come before the effect. Now the problem with asking the questions "what came before the thing that wasn't preceded by anything?" or "what time was it before time existed?" is quite obvious. They make no logical sense. How can an effect (the Universe) come after a cause when the notion of "coming after" is only meaningful after the Universe already exists? Surely, I can't be the only one whose brain explodes every time someone asks "what came before the Big Bang?".

I do concede, however, that there was a point where the Universe was not theorised to be the beginning of both space and time. I believe Einstein stated that although space began with the Big Bang, time did not, but was a dimension stretching ad infinitum. Sure, at that point you could ask the question "what came before the Big Bang?" which is effectively the same thing as asking "what caused the Big Bang?" because as I have already mentioned, the cause must come before the effect, but it isn't so anymore.

It really does seem like the Universe is the uncaused cause; the unmoved mover, but now that I think about it, I retract my statement about red versus blue dresses for blondes and brunettes. It depends on the person, and I'm sorry for leaving redheads out of the equation. If there was indeed one hair colour that matches any colour of dress, I would have to give it up for black hair ... or no hair.