Origin? This one word has teased the minds of some of the greatest thinkers and scientists for as long as has been recorded. Despite many great revelations among these brilliant minds the answer still seems to be just behind the next great discovery. Will we ever know where we come from? can we know? further is it just an illusion or are we really experiencing this universe as it seems, physical?
In this essay I will explore the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I will begin with an argument against the infinite universe possibility, as a defense for the second premise of the argument. Then bring some scientific findings of the present era to the fore to show that the idea of a beginning is not as far from reality as one would expect. Firstly, I will lay out the argument in its logical form:
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence.
I will take my defensive position in this argument, I believe there is good evidence for its validity. Al-kind first put this argument together in this form, Kindi was an Arabic philosopher (Born c.801) a lot of his work was lost over the years and many thinkers around the globe have not encountered his work or heard of him by name. Inspired by the ancient Greek philosophers he wrote many books on many subjects. Inspired by Kindi, Dr. William Lane Craig took Kindi’s work and expanded it further.
This is where I will take my position in defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Premise one is indeed a fact, we can experience and observe things around us, and things exist as far as our human perception can allow. In fact, science has spent an enormous amount of time exploring things that exist, we can either say it is a futile endeavor of fools, or there is actually something there to see. Safe to say it is a noble venture. Most of the argument hits squarely on the second premise, to be precise, the word ‘began’ is where all of the tension lies. In order to defend this premise, I will outline some points of interest, firstly the absurdity of an infinite universe. In regard to an infinite universe, Aristotle spent many pages across the entire spectrum of his works arguing that an actually infinite number of anything cannot exist. In contrast, he allowed infinite things to exist in potentiality, in one’s mind not in reality. George Friedrich Gauss a well-respected and accomplished mathematician of the 19th century states, “I protest….against the use of infinite as if it were something finished; this use is not admissible in mathematics.” Further consideration of the work Kindi has done, is of the implication of how an infinite could affect time itself, Kandi's arguments for this are:
- No actual infinite quantity can exist.
- Time is quantitive.
- Therefore, infinite time cannot exist.
And further.
- Before any given moment in time could arrive, an infinite number of prior times would have been traversed if time were infinite.
- But the infinite cannot be traversed.
- Therefore, no given moment could arrive.
Absurd…. There is a lot to think about in these arguments but to really bring this down to the ground where we can actually experience this idea of infinity, I bring David Hilbert into the picture because of his famed analogy of the Hilbert’s Grand Hotel. Hilbert’s Hotel is a thought experiment that lays out an idea of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, but is full and can not accept any more guests. The story continues as an infinite number of guests turn up at the counter to be given a room, and as the guests in each room are moved to other rooms, space then becomes available to settle a guest into a room, this continues for an infinite number of people.
The problem lies in the fact that the hotel is full and cannot take any more guests, but the guests keep coming and are settled. Kragh does a good job explaining it in his analysis of the experiment. This experiment outlines the fallacy of infinity as a physical reality, not to say the idea of infinity cannot be true in theory, but the actuality of infinity as it applies to our physical existence. In getting to this point in the defense, it could still be said that we are still sitting in our comfy chairs, gazing at our navels trying to explain how we exist, or how we began. The nature of existence cannot be totally explained in theory but must be also observable. So in order to bring some hard evidence to the fore, I will bring a scientific giant to the table, Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity was one of his great works, but by his own admission, he made a mistake as George Gamow documents in an article for Scientific American.
In the theory Einstein came to the conclusion that the universe is constantly moving, he didn’t like this idea, so he set about to make his equation static, by adding an additional sum to the middle of the equation, this he called a ‘Cosmological Constant’, this solved the problem of a universe collapsing under the weight of its own gravitational forces, thus giving rise to his theory of a stable and static universe, this is, however, his “Blunder” to put it in his words, and he set about to eliminate it from his work. Further investigation into understanding why Einstein set about to eliminate this part of his work reveals another groundbreaking discovery. Edwin Hubble was an astronomer of the early 20th century, his work is well known throughout the world, it was Hubble, in his work at Mount Wilson Observatory, discovered what is now known as ‘Hubble’s Law’. This discovery was equally as groundbreaking as Einsteins' theory, he discovered the ‘redshift’ in still-frame photos of the stars and galaxies. This implied that the red hue present in Nebulae that were shown on the slides, that almost everything in the universe was in fact moving away from our earth. This was a startling find, especially to Einstein.
Once Hubble published his findings in 1929, Einstein was left bare, there was no hard evidence that his Cosmological constant equation was wrong….. totally wrong. Einstein was reported by New York Times as saying: “New observations by Hubble and Humason concerning the redshift of light in distant nebulae make the presumption near that the general structure of the universe is not static” This was truly an incredible discovery, this evidence no documented, an expanding universe was now the excepted norm, as opposed to a static universe. The implications of this are enormous, if an expanding universe, there must be a trajectory. Implying that there must be a starting point or a beginning. Many other Physicists now agree that Einstein had made a mistake in his inclusion of the Cosmological constant equation. However, the rest of his equation still stands as the foundation for all universe models today. Further, Einstein’s theory of relativity states that space, time, and matter cannot exist apart from each other, in fact, the three parts of existence, must be present at exactly the same time to exist at all.
In conclusion: Bringing all these arguments and points together, into something of a coherent statement, I will briefly conclude each part and bring my final conclusion at the end. As mentioned Premise One is a stand-alone, no defense is needed. The second premise needs defense, I believe the arguments formed by Craig and Kindi hold weight, in Craig's case, making the claim the universe began left us begging the question. Kindi although was alive many years before Craig, had formulated the arguments to support Craig’s claims, one would assume, Craig bridged a gap in Kindi’s argument, and brought some closure to a cosmological argument mounted some 1200 years prior. Kindi’s formulations on time and infinite impossibilities are solid and are in need of further analysis, there are claims to absolutes that are begging the question also. However, I believe that the argument will stand under critical analysis, and could be a topic of research in the future. Hilbert’s Hotel explains an infinite regress in reality, and how it cannot actually be a real experience that is true and observable. Einstein’s theory of relativity and the interaction between Hubbles' Law and the cosmological constant, brings hard evidence to the table that suggests Space, Time and Matter did indeed have a beginning.
Final Conclusion:
Taking into consideration all of the aforementioned material, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the universe began. Resting in this position, I will now bring the initial argument back into our view. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. (a) No defense is required, observable, and has scientific evidence. 2. The universe began to exist. (a) Because of the above relevant material, I believe this to be true, the universe did indeed begin. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence. This leaves me to finish this essay on the last statement in this argument. Causation, if the universe began, there must be a cause. Craig and Kindi both have their deity persuasions, as would every other person mentioned throughout this essay, what did cause the universe to exist, can we know? This is an entirely different argument, one for another time……. perhaps.
Bibliography:
- William Lane Craig. 2007. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Wipf And Stock. 63 Aristotle Physica 3. 5. 204b1-206a8
- Karl Friedrich Guass and Heinrich Christian Schumacher , Briefwechsel, 6 vols, ed C.A.F Peters (Altona: Esch, 1860-65), 2: 269.
- Kragh Helge, The true(?) Story of Hilbert’s infinite hotel. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.0059.pdf (Centre for Science Studies, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark. E-mail: helge.kragh@ivs.au.dk.).
- G.Gamow, Sci. Am. Vol 195, 136 (1956). O’Raifeartaigh, Cormac and Simon Mitton. (Interrogating the Legend of Einstein’s “biggest blunder”). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.06768.pdf
- Edwin Hubble, “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15 (1929), 168-173 Associated Press Report, “Prof. Einstein begins his work at Mt. Wilson”, New York Times, (1931) January 3rd, 1
- Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston, 'The Existence of God,' in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1964).p79-81
- G.J. Whitrow, The Natural Philosophy of Time, 2d ed. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980]. P9
Stuck on your essay?
