The Kalam Cosmological Argument William Lane Craig

[William]

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

[William]

That may be a reasonable characterization, as long as we agree the "grasping" is not some intellectual activity. We innately react to the external world (distinct from our person) even before we can describe it verbally much less learn to reason.

Yes. Before we know language, we experience a wordless and basic reality.
We grow into it, developing personality, perspective et al.

The shape of the earth is not a properly basic belief. A person may come to believe the earth is flat because it visually appears to be. Those of us who believe it to be roughly spherical believe this because we've seen the scientific analysis. Either way, it's a belief derived from other beliefs.

Basic beliefs (whether proper or not) are not derived from other beliefs. A basic belief is rational if and only if it is properly basic - innate, and caused by whatever caused us (irrespective of the cause, natural or unnatural).

A "rational" belief isn't necessarily true, but thinking rationally leads in the direction of truth moreso than irrationality.

Again - Before we know language, we experience a wordless and basic reality.
We grow into it, developing personality, perspective et al.

You haven't shown you understand the concept of a properly basic belief, since you only compared it to a derived belief.

I'm not going to get into other matters until it's clear you understand the basics.

Are we clear now?

[fredonly]

Are we clear now?

Only if you acknowledge:
1) it is rational to hold a properly basic belief.
2) we should strive to develop new beliefs rationally.

[William]

Are we clear now?

Only if you acknowledge:
1) it is rational to hold a properly basic belief.
2) we should strive to develop new beliefs rationally.

Do you agree that it is rational to think that "before we know language, we experience a wordless and basic reality" is a properly basic belief?
Do you agree that as we grow into it, developing personality, perspective et al we should strive to develop new beliefs rationally?

If you agree with those, then we both agree and can continue.

Otherwise there is still some sorting out to do.

[fredonly]

Are we clear now?

Only if you acknowledge:
1) it is rational to hold a properly basic belief.
2) we should strive to develop new beliefs rationally.

Do you agree that it is rational to think that "before we know language, we experience a wordless and basic reality" is a properly basic belief?
Do you agree that as we grow into it, developing personality, perspective et al we should strive to develop new beliefs rationally?

If you agree with those, then we both agree and can continue.

Otherwise there is still some sorting out to do.

Yes, I agree.

Next I want to talk about science.

Science advances rationally, in that it is based on evidence, the inferring of hypotheses by scientists, testing those hypotheses, and ultimately devoloping theories that ultimately get widely accepted among scientists.

It is rational for us to accept those theories as provisionally true. Provisional, because theories can't usually be proven absolutely true- new information can falsify them. But accepting them as provisionally true provides rational justification to judge new propositions, and reject a proposition that is contradicted by known science.

This doesn't preclude gaining knowledge* through other, non-scientific means.

* knowledge= justified beliefs. A justified belief may be false. Isaac Newton was justified in believing his gravitational theory, despite it eventually being falsified by data unavailable to him.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #54]

Do you agree that it is rational to think that "before we know language, we experience a wordless and basic reality" is a properly basic belief?
Do you agree that as we grow into it, developing personality, perspective et al we should strive to develop new beliefs rationally?

If you agree with those, then we both agree and can continue.

Otherwise there is still some sorting out to do.

Yes, I agree.

Then we can continue...

Next I want to talk about science.

As I said in my most recent replies;

•I (the minder) gave you (the naturalist) a (fairly unknown) example of an Indisputable Fact. As evidence.
•I have provided a particular Indisputable Fact (with accompanying evidence) which you have yet to respond to and are perhaps ignoring the implications of.

•What I actually did was supply the IF along with a few lists of data to show the evidence which can be obtained through the IF. I made no claims that such was or was not evidence of mindism. The IF simply infers that the likeliest explanation for why this is an IF, is because of mindfulness.
In all my interactions with both Christians and non-Christians I have yet to be shown a better explanation for this particular IF than natural mindfulness.

•My focus (what I want to engage with) is the evidence and I want you to acknowledge the simple Indisputable Fact I presented and tell me why (from your position) the IF does not constitute the possibility of mindfulness involved in the existence of the universe.

Do you agree that the process of science is able to deal with/examine et al any Indisputable Fact?

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #54]

Do you agree that it is rational to think that "before we know language, we experience a wordless and basic reality" is a properly basic belief?
Do you agree that as we grow into it, developing personality, perspective et al we should strive to develop new beliefs rationally?

If you agree with those, then we both agree and can continue.

Otherwise there is still some sorting out to do.

Yes, I agree.

Then we can continue...

Next I want to talk about science.

As I said in my most recent replies; ...

No, I'm in the middle of showing you that my belief in metaphysical naturalism is not circular, as you alleged. I need to know if we're still alligned thus far. Tell me if you agree with what I said. Here it is again:

Science advances rationally, in that it is based on evidence, the inferring of hypotheses by scientists, testing those hypotheses, and ultimately devoloping theories that ultimately get widely accepted among scientists.

It is rational for us to accept those theories as provisionally true. Provisional, because theories can't usually be proven absolutely true- new information can falsify them. But accepting them as provisionally true provides rational justification to judge new propositions, and reject a proposition that is contradicted by known science.

This doesn't preclude gaining knowledge* through other, non-scientific means.

* knowledge= justified beliefs. A justified belief may be false. Isaac Newton was justified in believing his gravitational theory, despite it eventually being falsified by data unavailable to him.

[The Tanager]

But this theist assumption is unparsimonious to an extreme. It entails a being that just happens to exist that holds magical knowledge of the truth value of every possible proposition, and this knowledge exists timelessly and uncaused. This includes its design plan for this universe, and the design plans for all possible universes (to "know" what the best possible universe would be).

The version Craig has popularized doesn’t conclude that God is omniscient. And it doesn’t assume anything. It logically concludes it. The argument concludes that there must be a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe (which fits the classical notion of a God). There is nothing unparsimonious about that.

By contrast, naturalism is based on the undisputed fact the natural world exists, and omits the ad hoc assumption a "spiritual" existence also exists. Laws of nature exist as part of the fabric of natural existence, and this results in the undirected evolution of the natural world into one or more universes.

The argument concludes that the natural world itself (not just the current version of it, if the big bang wasn’t its beginning) was created. It would be logically impossible for nature to be the cause of that. There has to be some kind of non-natural existence to account for it.

[fredonly]

But this theist assumption is unparsimonious to an extreme. It entails a being that just happens to exist that holds magical knowledge of the truth value of every possible proposition, and this knowledge exists timelessly and uncaused. This includes its design plan for this universe, and the design plans for all possible universes (to "know" what the best possible universe would be).

The version Craig has popularized doesn’t conclude that God is omniscient. And it doesn’t assume anything. It logically concludes it. The argument concludes that there must be a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe (which fits the classical notion of a God). There is nothing unparsimonious about that.

You're right that the KCA doesn't assume omniscience, but it also doesn't entail a "beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe". The argument actually only shows that a first cause (or initial state) is likely. You're mistaking Craig's surrounding rhetoric for for the argument itself.

By contrast, naturalism is based on the undisputed fact the natural world exists, and omits the ad hoc assumption a "spiritual" existence also exists. Laws of nature exist as part of the fabric of natural existence, and this results in the undirected evolution of the natural world into one or more universes.

The argument concludes that the natural world itself (not just the current version of it, if the big bang wasn’t its beginning) was created. It would be logically impossible for nature to be the cause of that. There has to be some kind of non-natural existence to account for it.

That's not really a valid conclusion, because it depends on an equivocation on the term "begin to exist". Our basis for the assumption that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is our observation within the universe, observations that show that an object begins to exist only after a temporally prior state of affairs in which it did not exist. Craig tries to patch this with by defining "begins to exist" in a way that exempts God, but it's a special pleading.

I am persuaded that time is finite to the past, but this only suggests an initial state. An initial state of "God sans universe" is logically possible, but so is "initial state of material reality". An initial state could not have been caused to exist because that would entail a cause temporally preceding it - which is logically impossible. Craig has to rationalize this, and we can discuss those rationalizations if you like, but for now - I'll just point out that none of those rationalizations are entailed by the premises. They are assumptions.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #56]

I'm in the middle of showing you that my belief in metaphysical naturalism is not circular, as you alleged. I need to know if we're still alligned thus far. Tell me if you agree with what I said.

My bad. I wasn't aware that this is what you were doing.

You said.

Science advances rationally, in that it is based on evidence, the inferring of hypotheses by scientists, testing those hypotheses, and ultimately devoloping theories that ultimately get widely accepted among scientists.

It is rational for us to accept those theories as provisionally true. Provisional, because theories can't usually be proven absolutely true- new information can falsify them. But accepting them as provisionally true provides rational justification to judge new propositions, and reject a proposition that is contradicted by known science.

I think that the process of science allows us to learn about the natural world in an objective manner, which is based on fact rather than opinion.

Do you agree that when we mention "Science" we are speaking about a process? If so, then we both agree.

This doesn't preclude gaining knowledge* through other, non-scientific means.

* knowledge= justified beliefs.

I agree this doesn't preclude gaining justified beliefs through other, non-scientific processes, if such is possible to do.

A justified belief may be false. Isaac Newton was justified in believing his gravitational theory, despite it eventually being falsified by data unavailable to him.

Did Isaac come to his justified belief through something other than scientific process of the data available to him, or through other non-scientific means?

[fredonly]

[Replying to William in post #59]

Do you agree that when we mention "Science" we are speaking about a process?

Not just that. The scientific method is a process, but science is also a body of knowledge eatablished through that process. I'm saying that we can justifiably accept that body of knowledge -because it consists of facts established through the process. Please verify you accept treating established science as justifiable (without circularity).If you do, I'll follow up with the next step in my reasoning.

I also want to be clear that this doesn't imply that the opinions of individual scientists should always be assumed to be true (although this can be worth considering). It is established theory that can be accepted as true.

Re: Isaac Newton, it's fair to assume his theory began as a hypothesis which he tested.