On the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Hector: The Kalam argument has to be the silliest argument for God. It just arbitrarily stops the infinite regress by defining God has always existed, and wasn't created.

LTDeadeye: The Kalam Cosmological Argument has never defined God's attribute of eternality any differently than what has already believed to be an attribute of his long before the argument was put forth. In no way is the thought 'God is eternal' an ad hoc contemporary proposition. Infinite regress is philosophically absurd and atheists had no problem at all thinking the universe itself was eternal until we discovered evidence the universe began.

As for what you think is a problem for arguing against the stoning of a woman, perhaps you should study biblical hermeneutics. There was Levitical law which was meant for a specific people during a specific time. Christians believe that we are no longer under the Old Testament law. As for the law at the time, God as the creator of life can be no more guilty of a wrong for taking a life than you or I could be guilty of stealing something from ourselves. Besides, a moral relativist has no case to make that anything is objectively immoral.

Hector: 1) You say infinite regress is impossible. While I agree it should be, I do not know. That said, what makes you think you can arbitrarily decide that God is where the regress stops? Even if I grant your whole argument, that God created the Universe and that it has the properties you ascribe to it, that doesn't imply that God itself did not have a creator.

2) Please define nothingness. What would one actually mean when talking about a state of "nothingness"?

3) The Big Bang is not actually an observation, but rather it is inferred from the fact that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Based on general relativity, the expanding universe is reversed until right before the singularity. Scientists only talk about trillionth^n of seconds after the big bang because the functions are not defined at the singularity. For all we know, time and space approach the singularity asymptotically, never quite reaching it, meaning that the universe could be infinite. The same problem occurs with black holes.

4) For God to be an appropriate hypothesis with "explanatory power", you would have to explain how is it that God proceeds about creating a universe, and how is that process distinct from any other universe creating mechanism. In this case, your alternative hypothesis for what "created" the universe is actually not that the universe created itself, or that it is eternal, but whether there are more universes. While it is true that there is no evidence for the multiverse hypothesis, neither is there for God's existence. By Occam's razor, the multi-universe hypothesis is preferred as it is merely an extension of the natural processes we know to exist in our current universe. It does not require a completely different "God System" for us to understand. Just as we were proven wrong that we were the only planet, the only solar system, galaxy, etc.

4.b) Also, you mention other options. Really, can you mention one other than the multiverse?

5) Even if the universe did begin to exist, what makes you think that the creator did not just re-arrange itself into the universe? Why must it be the case that the creator must be made of a different "stuff" than the universe?

6) What does it mean for something to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial? Would another universe be spaceless, timeless and immaterial? Is there any other way to create a universe than by using space, time and matter?

7) How can you talk about transitioning between states with a "timeless" being? That's why that definition is important, I would take it that this thing is in both states at the same time. Not really transitioning then.

Finally, even if I grant your whole argument, this does not lead to any specific god, let alone a good one.

The main theme here is that there are many vague terms in the argument. Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, Supernatural, God. Appropriate definitions help discern between concepts. Please provide definitions that do not only state what something is not, but that state what it is.

LTDeadeye: 1) If God was created then his creator would be God and if that God was created then that would be God. Taking into consideration the impossibility of infinite regress, and respecting Occam's razor, the God I'm referring to is a maximally great being.

2) By nothingness I mean no thing. Basically what rocks would dream about.

3) The math does break down as we trace backwards to the moment of the big bang so we must use sound philosophy to carry us further. Even if it was the case that the singularity just was, you'd still be faced with the problem of why the singularity existed rather than no singularity at all, what caused it to transition from a state of non expansion to a state of expansion, why it wasn't subject to the second law of thermodynamics until it expanded and we reintroduce the problem of infinite regress.

4) I don't have to explain the explanation of the creation of the universe in order to arrive at a best explanation. If I explain the explanation of the explanation, will I then have the responsibility of explaining the explanation of the explanation of the explanation ad infinitum? I agree that there's no empirical evidence in support of the multiverse theory as it is merely a metaphysical proposal. There is evidence in support of God and we are discussing one of them, namely the Kalam Cosmological argument. The greatest weakness to the Kalam is whether or not the A theory or B theory of time is true. Even If I grant the multiverse, this only kicks the stone down the pavement because the multiverse itself would require an explanation of its origins unless we reintroduce infinite regress which is problematic.

4.b) There's also the oscillating universe theory which suggests the universe might be in an infinite cycle of expanding and retracting (this suffers the problem of violating the second law of thermodynamics because, like a bouncing ball, it would eventually run out of usable energy and stop bouncing i.e. banging).

5) The problem is that the universe is contingent and God is a necessarily existing being. The universe had a beginning and will eventually succumb to heat death but God is eternal. If God is the universe then pantheism would be true.

6) A state of affairs devoid of space time and matter wouldn't be a universe. This is like asking what if a triangle had four sides. If a shape had four sides it would not, by definition, be a triangle.

7) The cause and effect would be simultaneous. Time would come into existence simultaneously with God's willing it so.

I agree, This is but one of a cumulative set of arguments for the existence of God. The Kalam cosmological argument, the argument from contingency, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the modal ontological argument all combined with the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth eventually point to a specific God.

1) Once again, all you have done by saying you refer to a "maximally great being" is stopping the infinite regress arbitrarily.

2) Rocks do not think. So, nothing is what nothingness means really. That concept is vacuous. There has never been nothingness. We need Kalam, Teleological and Cosmological arguments for Nothingness, just as there are for God.

3) That might very well be a problem, but saying "God dit it" doesn't solve it.

4) A hypothesis is literally a proposed explanation for how things work. If you are saying that hypothesis are not that, then we have a definition problem. There is no evidence for God, there are arguments. That's not evidence. Again, even if the multiverse requires an explanation, God isn't it

4b) Yes, that's a theory i personally find quite beautiful even if it goes against current scientific understanding. I don't form a church around it though.

5) Again, you keep assuming your definitions are true... You believe god is a necessarily existing being, you haven't demonstrated that.

6) Yes. We agree. Therefore, a God that is immaterial, spaceless and timeless is just as a squared triangle; meaningless.

7) Transition cannot be instantaneous. By definition, it requires going from one state to the other. If you are in both states at the same time, you cannot transition.

Even if all those arguments hold, they lead just as much to Mohammed as to Jesus. I could make up a God right now to make it point to that one instead.