Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument convince you that God exists?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • No.

    Votes: 25 92.6%
  • I'm not sure that I properly understand the argument.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • No opinion or would rather not answer.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
Then God, by your own arguments, can not be distinct from everything if God exists.
To repeat your claims: everything is all that exists. God is separate from everything. God exists.
Unfortunately "God exists" simply doesn't follow logically from the first two. In fact the opposite does: "God does not exist".
So you keep bleating. Unfortunately you have not been able to show how God's existence logically follows (validly at least) from the premises you provide.
All you now seem able to do is repeat your claim, as if you have stuck your fingers in your ear, childlike, and are simply going "Nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you nyah nyah nyah!"

Seems we have reached the unproductive phase of your involvement in this thread, Jan, given your attitude?

Of course He can. The argument states that...4

everything that begins to exist has a cause,

Thing: an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.


As far as we know, these things begin to exist, and as we can see no God, as a physical being,
we cannot involve God in this, or the other two premises. Therefore the question is not being begged.

the univcrse began to exist

the universe had a cause.
It is from the third premise we draw the conclusion that God is cause.
Basically an uncaused, beginningless, cause, was responsible for the universe.
Earlier on I posted some attributes this cause had to have, and those attributes describe God.

So yes, there was nothing (no thing) before the beginning of the cosmos, but it doesn't mean that God hasn't always been.
Even if matter always existed, it didn't exist as uniformed nature we experience now.

The dictionary definition of everything states, that it is all things, plus, the current situation, life in general. Not the sum total of all existence.

jan .
 
Last edited:
While the argument might make some sense, I think the conclusion "this cause is god" is invalid. A god is usually described as a sentient being, and the cause of the universe might as well just have been a random hickup in a yet to be defined embedding of our universe.

The cause of the universe exists outside of time (as time comes into being with the universe). The universe contains all manner of things, including conscious life.
Different kinds of expressions, concepts, opinions, etc... To us this may seem like billions of years to come to this point in our evolution (some would beg to differ), which is obviously
an inconceivable amount of time. But to a timeless cause, it would occur at will. And I say 'will', because we experience 'will', therefore it exists, therefore it is a part of the cause.
A 'will' signifies desire, choice, etc... Such attributes are personal, not material.

jan.
 
If that's what you're talking about (and I'm glad you figured that out), then you should explicitly say that.

We also don't know much about the entire contents of the universe. So why do you want to make assumptions about the entire universe but not god?

There is no need, but you said that the universe was everything that exists. If that was the case, then if god exists then god is part of the university. So you have to define the universe in some other way.

I explained what every thing means. It basically means material objects. As far as we know material objects have an explanation for their existence, meaning they are contingent.
The cause-er of the universe, or everything (according to definition), cannot be the same as it's effect. It cannot bring time into being (let's call time a clock), and then be under the control of the device.
That makes no sense.

jan.
 
Is this thread then really about whether God (whatever God is), is logically necessary?

But suppose God does exist and logical necessity has nothing to do with it. God exists because humans need God. If they didn't, God would not exist and nor would religions, or means of connection to God. Here, I mean God in general, not one worshipped by a particular group.

If humans need God, the question is: ''why do humans need God''?
Putting aside the throwaways like man need an explanation for thunder, or some devious people invented Him to control the masses, etc...
Why not look at it from the perspective that God IS logically necessary, and that's the reason why humans need Him. There are humans who believe they don't need God, but it obviously doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, only that we don't need Him.
I guess I'm asking why bother to maintain that God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God (when there clearly is), why not just admit you don't need Him (like a teenager may think he/she doesn't need his/father, and expresses that by pretending he doesn't exit).

So shouldn't the question be why do we need this "God", when did we start needing, and why do we still need God despite all the logical arguments?

Because we totally reliant on God. Without God, there is no perception, no awareness. We're living on a planet that is finely tuned for us. We have an abundance of food, water, and resources. We have the ability to know God, or deny Him (should we choose). We can understand the greatness of God through art, science, religion, and philosophy. This is an ability we take for granted, without appreciating how we have obtained it. Of course this has nothing to do with the logic of God's necessary existence, as in it doesn't prove God exists. But if God does exist..;

jan.
 
Because we totally reliant on God. Without God, there is no perception, no awareness.

Sorry, but no. I don't believe in any god. I don't rely on any god. I'm nearly 100% sure there is no god, even that I can't prove it. I perceive and I am aware. All without any god.

You should not extrapolate yourself this way, and assume everyone is like you. If you imagine to be all reliant on god, ok. But that doesn't mean, everyone is.

PS: In your case I'd be very careful. It might be that you rely on an illusion. This can hurt very much if the illison finally pops. Better not rely on anything else but yourself and your own abilities. That's the only thing no one can take from you.
 
I guess I'm asking why bother to maintain that God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God (when there clearly is), why not just admit you don't need Him (like a teenager may think he/she doesn't need his/father, and expresses that by pretending he doesn't exit).
Because it's both. No one needs him and he doesn't exist.
 
Sorry, but no. I don't believe in any god. I don't rely on any god. I'm nearly 100% sure there is no god, even that I can't prove it. I perceive and I am aware. All without any god.

Belief has nothing to do with it.
You are aware because you're bodily machine comes with that ability.

You should not extrapolate yourself this way, and assume everyone is like you. If you imagine to be all reliant on god, ok. But that doesn't mean, everyone is.

If the logical conclusion is, God exist. Then every sentient being in the cosmos is reliant upon the mercy of God, whether you believe in Him, accept the proposition, or not.
In most scriptures you will find something like 'it is a fool that says there is no God'.

PS: In your case I'd be very careful. It might be that you rely on an illusion. This can hurt very much if the illison finally pops. Better not rely on anything else but yourself and your own abilities. That's the only thing no one can take from you.

We have our allotted time, then we leave. You have no control, you only think you do.
Your abilities can taken away from you, just like that.

jan.
 
There is Occams razor - if you have two explanations, take the one which needs fewer new and/or additional concepts/entities whatever. This is not a 100% rule, but a surprising good one.

So if I have two equivalent explanations, one which requires a god, and one which can explain the thing without a god, I'll take the one without a god.

So yes, really. Unless there comes evidence that the simple explanation was insufficient. You can deliver such evidence, but your postings here showed a lot of claims, yet little evidence to support your claims, so I have doubts you can undermine the simple explanation that need no god. But go ahead and try.

PS: Evidence, as I mean it, must be testable and repeatable. It's not sufficient to say "I have seen". It must be possible to repeat the sight and test it. Otherwise it's just an empty phrase to me. Everone can claim "I have seen/experienced", it means nothing if the thing in question cannot be repeated and tested by other people.
 
Back
Top