Kalam Cosmological Proof of God - Premises and Conclusion repudiated

Updated Thru 4/14/2019

A common formulation of the Argument:

Premise 1) Everything that began to exist has a cause for its existence

Premise 2) the universe began to exist

Conclusion 3) therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.

This argument can be repudiated for theological reasons see Kalam Cosmological proof of God repudiated by Theology

However this post will focus on the legitimacy of the premises and conclusion. 

On The Reasonableness of  Premise 1

There are quantum events which are random so there does not seem to be causes for them. For example a particle may come into being out of a vacuum, and this process seems to be random. 
Another example is radioactive decay - when the energy level of a nucleus drops, it emits a photon. It is a probabilistic process.

Many things that began to exist do not seem to have a cause. For example, I weave a coat. The cause can be me, but who caused me ? My parents, But then who caused my parents ? And we have not even begun to ask about the material for the coat. The point is there are many things we observe that are in transition from one form into another or have no discernible cause. Arguably, is there really anything we observe that actually begins to exist ?

Even if our every day experience confirms Premise 1 it would only  apply to our everyday experiences which involves parts of the Universe. However, we have no experience with entire Universes to claim  such a system needs a cause. A bar of soap can be made from fats,sodium hydroxide and water. The behavior of soap differs greatly from its constituents. Thus 'Kalam's conclusion' does not follow from the premises. Stated another way, the word “Everything” in Premise 1 is too comprehensive.

On the Reasonableness of Kalam Premise 2  

There are many cosmologists that do not agree the Universe began to exist. Some  have offered models with our Universe not having a beginning. Examples include cyclic models, Caroll and Chen model and others.

{ETA 4/14/2019 From A First Course in General Relativity 2009 by Bernard Schutz Second Edition Page 357  “This [within one Planck time 10^−43 seconds  of the Big Bang] is the domain of quantum gravity, and it may well turn out that, when we have a quantum theory of the gravitational interaction, we will find that the universe has a history before what we call the Big Bang.”}

Professor of Physics Sean Carroll - Beginning on page 50 of From Eternity to Here:  "It might be that the Universe did not exist before the Big Bang [BB], just as conventional general relativity seems to imply. Or it might very well be - as I tend to believe, for reasons that will become clear - that space and time did exist before the BB; what we call the BB is a kind of transition from one phase to another."   "The correct deduction is not that general relativity predicts a singularity, but that general relativity predicts that the universe evolves into a configuration where  general relativity itself breaks down."

Professor of Physics Victor Stenger is also of the opinion that the Universe need not have had a beginning. ( See for example page 73 of his book Quantum Gods 2009)

Also Stenger in his book God and the Folly of Faith 2012 - beginning on page 178  Regarding the oft cited Borde, Guth Vilenkin Theorem he explains as follows. "Again, this theorem is derived from general relativity and so is inapplicable to the issue of origins. Furthermore it is disputed by other authors [he cites Aguirre, Gratton as examples]." 
Stenger also explains - " I asked Vilenkin personally if his theorem requires a beginning. His email reply: "No. But it proves that the expansion of the Universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating the the Universe was contracting prior to some time". This is exactly what a number of existing models for the uncreated origin of our Universe do." 

{ETA 1/3/2016 Page 143-148 in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism Petto and Godfrey Editors 2007.  Physics Professor Victor Stenger - "Several cosmological scenarios have been published by established scholars in reputable scientific journals that allow for a universe to appear as an uncaused quantum event from an initial state of zero energy (Akatz and Pagels 1982;...).  "It is conventional to label the time of the Big Bang as t=0. However, nothing we know demands that this was the beginning of time..., or that no universe existed at earlier times."
"No scientific basis exists for assuming a universe did not exist before the Big Bang" }

{ETA 1/23/2016  http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/

April 28, 2012 by Sean Carroll -  A Universe from Nothing? "...the physical universe can perfectly well be self-contained; it doesn’t need anything or anyone from outside to get it started, even if it had a “beginning.”  " }

{ETA 11/13/2018 From the 2010 Book The Void by Frank Close Professor of Theoretical Physics Oxford 

Page 152 - According to Quantum Theory Universe could be a huge vacuum fluctuation. If this is so then who is to say that ours is the one and only Universe. 



Page 158 “So our best data are consistent with the theory that out large-scale Universe erupted thru inflation.”  “There is no reason to believe that our inflationary Universe is, was, a one off event. There could be many other such Universes that have erupted in similar fashion to this but which are beyond our awareness.”     The book mentions the  Hawking and Hartle model - there is no beginning of the Universe. It simply exists.}

In short, our knowledge of the very early Universe is uncertain enough that Premise 2 is in doubt. 

The Kalam’s Conclusion

For discussion purposes 1,2,3 below accept the premises  and assume the logic of the Kalam is sound. There are the following objections to concluding that the Kalam proves a God.

1) We can only  infer the universe has a cause; a cause of the kind as found in Premise 1. And Premise 1 causes must occur within time and space, since we have no knowledge of causes external to time and space. This I think would preclude a Judaeo-Islamic-Christian god {ETA 12/7/2018 at least according to those Theologians who hold G-d is outside of time and space. Also in regards to premise 1 'cause(s)". We can only  infer the universe has a cause; a cause of the kind as found in Premise 1.The causes we know about involve the material things. This I think would preclude a Judaeo-Islamic-Christian god  at least according to those Theologians who hold G-d is not material.}

2) We can only  infer the universe has a cause, not that the cause is some version of a Judaeo-Islamic-Christian god. The cause may be a monster. Consider life on earth operates on the concept of mutual consumption, and in common parlance the survival of the fittest. Also the earth with all it’s natural disasters and difficult conditions is a very inhospitable and dangerous place for living things.

3) Even if we can not provide a cause for the Universe, claiming  God is the cause is called the God of the Gaps Fallacy. 

4) Finally, the cause need not be something supernatural. It may have been a quantum fluctuation or quantum tunneling or some other natural phenomenon. (See for example Hartle-Hawking or Krauss or Carroll-Chen or Aguirre-Gratton or Stenger or Vilenkin for natural explanations of the Universe). Perhaps as scientists resolve the science in the very early universe the cause may become apparent.

"Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement." ( Does the Universe Need God? Professor Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology)

{ETA 12/27/2016  From Seven Brief Lessons on Physics By Carlo Rovelli 2014, 2016. The Theoretical Physicist Carlo is one of the founders of Loop Quantum Gravity Theory (LQG). Beginning on page 39 - Einstein developed relativity  to resolve the conflict between the equations of electromagnetism and mechanics. Today there is a conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. A group of researchers are working on reconciling the conflict thru Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). Consider a star as it begins to run out of fuel and starts to collapse. Per Loop Quantum Gravity infinitesimal points/singularities don’t exist, so the star’s matter will only condense up to a point (called a Planck Star) wherein  quantum fluctuations of space-time balance the weight of matter.  But a Planck star is not stable and it can then begin to expand again. When our Universe was extremely compressed, quantum theory generates a repulsive force and this can create a Big Bang. Thus our  Universe may have been born from a preceding Universe that compressed under it’s own weight into a tiny space before expanding into the Universe we observe.  

[LQG can provide a natural explanation why the BB occurred and what existed before the BB. So we need not posit a God to start the BB.]}


{ETA 6/15/2014 Why is there something rather than nothing ? Maybe the "something" (for example quantum fields) always existed.  Also, some Cosmologists are finding that our Universe may really be nothing because the energy and matter in the Universe is offset by gravity giving just about nothing.} 

{ETA 3/31/2019 From  Part 3 ofCosmology: The History and Nature of Our Universe By Professor of Astronomy Mark Whittle 2008 
Beginning Page 33 - The sum of all energy and matter in the Universe after including gravity energy is roughly zero. The Universe is in a sense empty. Inflation was the mechanism that split 'nothing' into positive matter and negative energy. The book also mentions Our Universe as a random quantum fluctuation from  preinflation fields and that other quantum fluctuations may make other Universes.} 


{ETA 6/18/2014 There are so called “laws of nature”. Does not a law require a law giver ?

Scientists tell us the laws such as conservation of energy, mass, momentums are a consequence of certain symmetries. For example there is no privileged place regarding when and where physics experiments are performed. 

{ETA 8/10/2018 Physics calculus by Eugene Hecht 1996 page 144 "Conservation of Linear Momentum arises from the homogeneity of empty space. " Page 300 "Conservation of Angular momentum arises from the isotropy of free space." Isotropy - physics indifferent to orientation. Page 347 Homogeneity of time - temporal displacement symmetry provides for conservation of Energy.} 

{ETA 8/13/2018 From Page 339 of Physics-calculus by Eugenr Hecht 1996: Gravity potential energy is negative. If the total of all other energy is equal in magnitude, the net energy of the Universe is zero. "It follows such a system could have spontaneously appeared out of 'nothingness', without violating energy conservation." }

The human legal system was created by humans, this does not mean physical laws require a giver. It is a false analogy since we have experience concerning the origins legal  laws but not physic laws.

According to some Cosmologists the “laws of nature” could have been different. For example certain multiverse theories.

If there are laws of nature they just could have always just been.

Finally, saying God gave us the laws is the god of the gaps fallacy. }


Here are some of my related posts Kalam Cosmological proof of God repudiated by Theology,  Proof of God From the Big Bang, Genesis and the Big Bang , Proof of God from Thermodynamics

Kalam Cosmological proof of God repudiated by Theology

UPDATED THRU 3/23/2016

(Sources unless stated are at bottom of post)

A common formulation of the Argument:

Premise 1) Everything that began to exist has a cause for its existence.

Premise 2) The universe began to exist.

Conclusion

 3) Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.

This argument can be refuted or repudiated for logical reasons, scientific reasons and theology.

This post will mainly discuss the theology.

The Kalam is used by some Theologians and Apologetics to ‘prove’ the Bible story of Genesis 1:1,2 is true.

I.E. The Universe was created ex-nihilo, (out of nothing) and by God. 

Here is one translation from the Jewish Publication Society's 1917 edition of the Hebrew Bible in English

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.  

--------------------------------------------
Let see what the Rambam says -

The Guide for the Perplexed by
Moses Maimonides translated from the Original Arabic Text M. Friedlander, Phd Second Edition, Revised Throughout (Eighth Impression)  Second edition published 1904

Page 199 
"We do not reject the Eternity of the Universe, because certain passages in Scripture confirm the Creation ; for such passages are not more numerous than those in which God is represented as a corporeal being ; nor is it impossible or difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. We might have explained them in the same manner as we did in respect to the Incorporeality of God. We should perhaps have had an easier task in showing that the Scriptural passages referred to are in harmony with the theory of
the Eternity of the Universe if we accepted the latter, than we had in explaining the anthropomorphisms in the Bible when we rejected the idea that God is corporeal."


{ETA 2/16/2014 -2/17/2014  - Rambam 'interprets'  Tenach passages that suggest God's corporeality as not meaning or suggesting God is corporeal.

The Rambam quote is used to show that the Tenach verses regarding creation can be 'interpreted' to mean 'Eternal' if needed. 2) The Rambam quote does not mean the Rambam believes the Universe is Eternal. 3) The Rambam quote in my blog can be deleted without changing one iota of this blog post. 4) In the same chapter of the quote  Rambam has a Plato Eternal and an Aristotle Eternal.  He appears to be saying the former would somehow be compatible with the Tenach, while not the second.

-----------------------------------------------

JPS on page 12 has this translation:

1 When God began to create heaven and earth 
2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind ...

{JPS also offers an alternate translation 

1 In the beginning God created  heaven and the earth.}

The translation “1 When...” suggests the notion as follows:

On page 13 JPS comments “In the Midrash, Bar Kappara upholds the troubling notion that the Torah shows God created the world out of preexistent material. But other Rabbis worry acknowledging this would cause people to liken God to a king who had built his palace on a garbage dump, thus arrogantly impugning His majesty (Gen Rab 1.5). In the ancient Near East, however, to say a deity had subdued chaos is to give him the highest praise.”


{ETA 7/20/2014 Page 1538 Regarding Job 26:10 "Here as in Gen.1.1-3; Ps  104.6-9; Prov 8.27, creation is described as God's making order out of an already existing chaos, which consisted of a watery abyss."}
-----------------------------------------------------

{ETA 3/23/2016 From the book Note to the New Translation of the Torah - Harry Orlinsky Editor 1969

Beginning Page 49 Translates  “When God began to create...” Regarding genesis 1-3 The book provides cogent reasons why the verse should not be translated “In the Beginning God created...”, some of which include Rashi’s reasons.  It finally concludes “The Hebrew text tells us nothing about ‘creation out of nothing’ (creation ex nihilo) or about the beginning of time.”}

 World renowned Bible Scholar Friedman translates and explains as follows:

1 In the beginning of god’s creating the skies and the earth
2 When the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face oft he deep...

He says: The Torah’s Hebrew means the earth had already existed in a shapeless condition prior to creation. Based on current  understanding of Biblical Hebrew tenses the “Creation of matter in the Torah is not out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) as many have claimed”.  
-----------------------------------------

{ETA 3/23/2016 Understanding Genesis by Nahum Sarna 1966

He translates Gen 1:1 “ When God began to create the Heaven and Earth..”

Beginning Page 2 Regarding Genesis Creation stories:

“It is obvious” none of the stories are based on human memory, nor are they modern science accounts of the physical world’s origin or nature. The stories are Non Scientific. It is a naive and futile exercise to attempt to reconcile Bible creation stories and modern science.  Any “correspondences” discovered or ingeniously established are nothing more than coincidence.  

The book also provide many points of contact with ancient near east mythology with Genesis creation. stories. Beginning page 39 The  Flood story - The Torah used very ancient traditions adapted for it’s own purpose. }

The Anchor Bible - Genesis E.A, Speiser 1964 translates and explains as follows:

Page 3 

1 When God set about to create heaven and earth
2 the world being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas....

Page 10 - the bible creation story is closely related to traditional mesopotamian beliefs and it may be safely posited the Babylonians did not take over these views from the Hebrews. He argues  the genesis account goes back to Babylonian prototypes.  

Page 13 Biblical writers repeat Babylonian formulation on sentence one, and Speiser elaborately justifies his translation.
-----------------------------------------
{ UPDATE 2/18/2014 Page 53 Reading the Old Testament - by Barry Bandstra 1995 offers 2 translations of Genesis 1:1-23

Ex-Nihilo Genesis1:1  In the begining Elohim created heaven and earth

Creation from an existing material Genesis 1:1 When Elohim began to create heaven and earth 

Bandstra then says "The second option seems more consistent with the rest of the account and is the one we follow here" }
----------------------------------------------------------
{Update 2/26/2014 Page 3 in Robert Alter's  book Genesis (1996) his translation of Genesis 1:1-2 as follows

When God began to create heaven and earth , and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep..

So we see Alter's translation follows creation from an existing material, and not ex-nihilo}
-------------------------------------------------------------

{ETA 3/8/2014 From the book Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Creation - Translated and annotated by Michael Linetsky 1988 

Genesis 1:1 uses the hebrew word BARA (bet - resh-aleph) typicaly translated as create. On page 4 note 16  Regarding the word BARA  "Ibn Ezra is merely out to show that this word is generally applied to creation from existent material and that there is no evidence in scripture that would show it to mean creation ex-nihilo.";  And on page 4, Genesis1:27 the same word BARA is used in relation to the creation of man, which the Torah teaches was from preexisting matter.}  

{ETA 3/8/2014 And from the book Judaism and the Doctrine of Creation by Norbert Samuelson 1994 on page 137 "Basing himself exclusively on the grammar of the terms within the Hebrew scriptures, Ibn Ezra rejects the claim that "BARA" must mean bringing something into existence out of nothing"}

{ETA 5/30/2014 Ramban interprets Ibn Ezra's opinion as on the first day ONLY LIGHT was created: "..at the beginning of creation of heaven and dry land there was no habitable place on earth; rather it was unformed and void and covered with water and G-d said, let there be light. According to Abraham Ibn Ezra opinion only light was created on the first day." In contrast Ramban holds there was creation Ex-Nihilo, creation out of nothing. Page 22 Ramban on Genesis by Rabbi Chavel 1999}
------------------------------------------------------------------------

{ETA 9/28/2104 Page 42 The Oxford Bible Commentary 2001 "[Genesis] 1:2 refers to the situation before God's creation action began. There is no question here of a creation Ex-Nihilo, 'a creation out of nothing'. The Earth (haares) already existed, but it was a formless void (tohu wabohu) - not a kind of non existence but something empty and formless, without light and covered by the water of the deep (tehom). There are echoes here of Near- Eastern cosmologies." }
-----------------------------------
{ETA 12/13/2014 The book Jewish Philosophy by Aaron Hughes 2005, writes Gersonidis holds the world was created from a pre-existent and formless body. And from the Book History of Jewish Philosophy Volume II 1997 Editors Frank and Leaman page  363 "Gersonides disagreed with Maimonides claims, both that creation of the world was indemonstrable and that the world was created Ex-Nihilo."and on Page 381 "For Gersonides , one cosmological theory is true - creation out of Eternal matter..." }
---------------------------------------
ETA 12/27/2014 - Rashi explains Genesis as follows:

The plain meaning is "At the beginning of the Creation of heaven and earth when the earth was without form and void and there was darkness, God said let there be light."

We see Rashi reads translates Genesis like many, (probably most)  modern academic scholars.

------------------------------------------------------



Given that the Torah probably means no creation ex-nihilo, the  Kalam argument would actually disprove the Torah.

Theologians and Apologetics seem to be  left with two choices. Repudiate the Kalam. Or argue against all the Bible scholarly evidence for no creation ex-nihilo per the Torah and say the Torah really means creation ex-nihilo. 

There are creation myths from around the world that support creation ex-nihilo or creation from some prior substance and so which ever option the  Torah really meant proves nothing.
----------------------------------------------------

Even if we accept the premises, and assume the logic of the Kalam is sound, we can only  infer the universe has a cause, not that god or gods or alien beings are the cause. Nor can we infer the cause is some version of a Judaeo-Islamic-Christian god. The cause may be a monster. Consider life on earth operates on the concept of mutual consumption, and in common parlance the survival of the fittest. Also the earth with all it’s natural disasters and difficult conditions is a very inhospitable and dangerous place for living things.

 The cause may have been a quantum fluctuation or quantum tunneling or some other natural phenomenon.  Perhaps as scientists resolve the science in the very early universe the cause may become apparent.

Related posts are my 

Kalam Cosmological Proof of God - Premises and Conclusion repudiated    6/11/14, includes Laws of nature from God ?


Proof of God from Big Bang  9/8/13

Genesis and the Big Bang  9/10/13 Some discrepancies between Genesis and modern cosmology  and why they are irreconcilable in intellectually honest manner.


--------------------------------------

Sources 

Friedman - Commentary on the Torah with a New English Translation 2001 by Richard E, Friedman

JPS  - Jewish Study Bible 2004 Berlin and Brettler