The KCA!

[POI]

For Debate: Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument provide sound reasoning for the assertion of a 'prime mover'? If so, does it happen to say anything about what this "prime mover" could even be? If the KCA is instead not good reasoning at all, please explain why?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #139]

Take a step.

Measure that step.

Start dividing that measurent by twos.

You will come to an infinite amount of divisions, or steps.

Denying that fact, denying that reality changes nothing, but perhaps one's considerations on your ability to understand reality.
Yet, all of those divisions (or steps) are traversed with a single step.

Makes no sense.

So basically, I can traverse all of those steps (an infinite amount) with a single step (destination B).

However, if I were to count all of those steps, one by one from the starting step to destination B, I would never arrive at destination B.

Yet, this can be accomplished with a single step.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

That whole line of reasoning assumes space is continuous rather than discrete. On a side note, it wasn't about understanding how to divide by 2. That isn't what 1985 has issues with.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #139]

Take a step.

Measure that step.

Start dividing that measurent by twos.

You will come to an infinite amount of divisions, or steps.

Denying that fact, denying that reality changes nothing, but perhaps one's considerations on your ability to understand reality.
Yet, all of those divisions (or steps) are traversed with a single step.

Makes no sense.

So basically, I can traverse all of those steps (an infinite amount) with a single step (destination B).

However, if I were to count all of those steps, one by one from the starting step to destination B, I would never arrive at destination B.

Yet, this can be accomplished with a single step.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

That whole line of reasoning assumes space is continuous rather than discrete. On a side note, it wasn't about understanding how to divide by 2. That isn't what 1985 has issues with.

1985 clearly didn't want to admit that you could create an infinite series by simply halving each subsequent step you take. This user didn't (and still doesn't) understand basic math and tried to pretend there could not be an infinite set between two points. The final challenge was to find a distance that could not be divided by 2. Other than 0 (which means there was no distance between the 2 points to begin with), it's not possible and they decided to die on that hill looking like they don't understand math.

I'm not sure what you are trying to rescue from 1985's confusion. Are you aware of a distance other than 0 that can't be divided by 2?

What is it you think 1985's issue was? They clearly dug themselves a hole with the math showing complete lack of understanding of basic infinite sets. Perhaps they simply accidentally went down the wrong rabbit hole while trying to parrot some apologetic they saw online, but they shot themselves in the foot when cornered with math.

The fact that you could traverse over an infinite set seemed to cause them to assume the math must be wrong. Meanwhile, they simply misunderstand how the math works. If you can step 1 foot, then you can traverse 1 foot by taking a 1 foot step. HOWEVER, if each step you take, you only take a step equal to half the remaining distance, you never reach the end point. Apparently they can't comprehend the difference between stepping 1 foot versus some smaller value than 1 (of which there are infinite possibilities).

[Diagoras]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #126]

I haven’t read the whole thread (nor the previous thread mentioned a couple of times already), so forgive me if this is repeating an argument already made.

Would you mind reading through this article that claims the KCA suffers from a couple of logical errors and offer your thoughts?

https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/view ... il_facpubs

Please note that philosophy isn’t my forte so while I could more or less follow the line of reasoning being used, I’m not confident that I could spot whether it was itself being illogical. Many thanks.

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm not sure what you are trying to rescue from 1985's confusion. Are you aware of a distance other than 0 that can't be divided by 2?

What is it you think 1985's issue was? They clearly dug themselves a hole with the math showing complete lack of understanding of basic infinite sets. Perhaps they simply accidentally went down the wrong rabbit hole while trying to parrot some apologetic they saw online, but they shot themselves in the foot when cornered with math.

The fact that you could traverse over an infinite set seemed to cause them to assume the math must be wrong. Meanwhile, they simply misunderstand how the math works. If you can step 1 foot, then you can traverse 1 foot by taking a 1 foot step. HOWEVER, if each step you take, you only take a step equal to half the remaining distance, you never reach the end point. Apparently they can't comprehend the difference between stepping 1 foot versus some smaller value than 1 (of which there are infinite possibilities).

"I'd like another smackdown on this subject, just like the last time".

That's what I'm getting out of it.

Is that it?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #126]

I haven’t read the whole thread (nor the previous thread mentioned a couple of times already), so forgive me if this is repeating an argument already made.

Would you mind reading through this article that claims the KCA suffers from a couple of logical errors and offer your thoughts?

https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/view ... il_facpubs

Please note that philosophy isn’t my forte so while I could more or less follow the line of reasoning being used, I’m not confident that I could spot whether it was itself being illogical. Many thanks.

I thought I would offer my observations on the paper you linked.

Wielenberg’s paper is a strong critique that effectively exposes logical inconsistencies in Craig’s KCA.
While theists may attempt counterarguments, they seem to weaken the explanatory power of KCA rather than resolve the contradictions.
This adds to the growing body of evidence that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a sound proof of God’s existence.

____________________

While Erik Wielenberg’s paper effectively exposes contradictions in William Lane Craig’s model, I think that The Actual Absolute Universe (AAU) framework presents an even stronger philosophical and scientific alternative to KCA.

Why The Actual Absolute Universe (AAU) Framework is a Stronger Alternative to KCA
1. The Problem with KCA: It Misunderstands "The Universe"
The KCA assumes that "the universe" refers to everything that exists, but this is an unjustified category error. In reality, we must distinguish between:

The Observable Universe (OU): The space-time system we experience, governed by physical laws.
The Actual Absolute Universe (AAU): The totality of all that exists, including matter, energy, fundamental laws, consciousness, and transformations.
By conflating the Observable Universe with the entirety of existence, KCA makes an unjustified leap—assuming that if our universe began to exist, everything must have begun to exist.

AAU’s Advantage:
AAU recognizes that the Observable Universe is just a phase within a larger necessary reality.
This avoids KCA’s false assumption that "beginning to exist" applies to all of reality.

2. AAU Eliminates the Need for an External Cause
KCA depends on the premise:
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The Universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, The Universe has a cause.

However, AAU dissolves this argument entirely by redefining what "beginning" means:

The Observable Universe may have had a beginning, but this was a transformation, not an absolute creation.
The Actual Absolute Universe (AAU) has always existed—it is eternal and necessary.
AAU’s Advantage:
Instead of needing a "cause," AAU exists by necessity, eliminating the need for an external creator.
KCA’s demand for a "first cause" becomes irrelevant once we recognize that transformations do not require external creators.

3. KCA’s Contradictions with Causality Do Not Apply to AAU.
As Wielenberg argues, Craig’s model of divine causality contains contradictions:

Craig says God is "timeless" but acts at t₁, making Him both timeless and temporal—an impossibility.
Craig says everything that begins to exist has a cause, but his "first divine action" has no prior cause—another contradiction.
Since AAU does not depend on an external cause, these contradictions simply do not arise.

AAU’s Advantage:
AAU does not require a transition between "timeless" and "temporal" states, removing the logical inconsistency.
AAU does not depend on a first uncaused action, avoiding KCA’s contradiction between causality and time’s beginning.

AAU Aligns with Modern Cosmology and Physics
KCA assumes an absolute beginning, but this is at odds with some of our current models of cosmology:

Quantum fluctuation models suggest a pre-existing quantum vacuum.
Cyclic universe models propose that the universe undergoes infinite transformations.
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) (Penrose) argues for an eternal process of transformations.
AAU is fully compatible with these models:

The Observable Universe is a transformation within the greater Actual Absolute Universe.
There was never "nothing"—only prior transformations.
AAU’s Advantage:
AAU is consistent with modern physics, unlike KCA’s outdated - somewhat medieval - cosmology.
AAU allows for scientifically supported models of an eternal reality without requiring a supernatural first cause.

4. The Role of Consciousness: Avoiding KCA’s Dualism.
KCA introduces dualism by claiming that an immaterial, personal Creator must have initiated the universe.

However, AAU includes consciousness/mindfulness as an intrinsic aspect of reality, rather than something external.

Scientific theories like Panpsychism and Integrated Information Theory (IIT) suggest that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe rather than a separate, divine entity.

AAU’s Advantage:
Avoids dualism by integrating consciousness into the actual structure of existence.
Shows that mind does not require an external divine source but arises naturally in AAU.

Final Verdict: AAU is a Superior Explanation to KCA.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument relies on a misconception of the universe, unfounded assumptions about causality, and logical contradictions. The Actual Absolute Universe framework provides a more coherent, scientifically valid, and logically consistent alternative.

Key Takeaways:
KCA mistakes the Observable Universe for all of existence—AAU corrects this category error.
KCA requires an external first cause—AAU eliminates the need for one.
KCA contradicts itself on time and causality—AAU avoids these contradictions.
AAU is fully compatible with modern physics—KCA is not.
AAU integrates consciousness naturally—KCA relies on supernatural dualism.

Conclusion: A Challenge to KCA Defenders
KCA only seems plausible if one assumes its faulty premises—but once we recognize that reality is broader than just the Observable Universe, the argument falls apart.
AAU presents a more elegant, rational, and scientifically coherent model that eliminates the need for an external cause entirely.

The Actual Absolute Universe.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #143]

Thanks Diagoras for that article and asking for my thoughts. Wielenberg argues that Craig makes two logical contradictions. I'm not convinced that God does become temporal with the creation of the universe, but Craig does and, if he is right, I still don't see a problem, so I'll assume he is right for the rest of this post. I’m also open to having misunderstood Wielenberg at some point, as talk about the beginning of time can be a bit tricky at times.

Contradiction 1 - God must be both temporal at t1 (since God creates the universe at t1) and timeless at t1 (to have the ability to create a temporal effect such as the universe).

Let’s start with the analogy Wielenberg discusses. A man sitting causes the first event S (him standing up). The event of him standing up can be said to be t1. The man is standing at t1. But did the man (as standing) cause the event at t1? Obviously not. The man (as sitting) caused the event that made him, at t1, a standing man. So, the sitting man is the cause even though the man is standing at t1. I think this is easy to see.

Transferring that analogy to God’s agent causation, God causes the first event B (bringing the universe into existence). Event B (including time coming into existence) is t1. God is temporal at t1. But did a temporal God cause the event at t1? No (although maybe not as obviously since we are talking about time itself beginning). The God (as timeless) caused the event that made him, at t1, a temporal God. So, the timeless God is the cause even though God is temporal at t1.

But Wielenberg says that since God is temporal at t1, the cause of event B (since it also happens at t1) must be temporal. If his treatment was applied to the analogy in the same way, we would have to say that since the man is standing at t1, the cause of event S (since it also happens at t1) must be standing. But this is clearly not the case, since the cause was the sitting man.

Contradiction 2 - The absolutely first event is both caused (since the beginning of time must have a cause) and uncaused (since GA…God’s agent causing of B…is that first event and it is uncaused).

But is GA an event? Wielenberg claims it is an event that consists of God causally producing B, but why think that? In event causation, we definitely have one event causally producing a second event, but that isn’t how agent causation works. An agent is not an event. Agent causation is when an agent causes an event to occur.

Ultimately, Wielenberg conflates God’s agent causing of B with God’s act of creation. Those are two different things. Yes, God’s act of creating the universe is an event (as he rightly quotes Craig), but God’s agent causation of that event is itself not an event. Notice Craig’s quotes that Wielenberg shares. They speak of God’s act of creation being an event, not God’s agent causation of an event being an event.

So, while GA is uncaused, it isn’t the first event; it’s the agent causation of that first event. There is no logical contradiction when the event is caused and the cause of that event is uncaused.

[POI]

As a reminder, I was begged into creating this thread. It's entertaining to read the responses, but such 'philosophical arguments' will likely do nothing to move the faith-needle (towards or away) from my current agnosticism regarding the topic of 'creation'. Anywho, I have decided to attach a 24-minute video which states that many may agree with me here, in that 'personal revelation' may instead be the catalyst to push an agnostic towards 'god'. These philosophical arguments, such as the KCA, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the fine-tuning argument, or the moral argument, though entertaining and stimulating, will likely not move the barometer, (one way or the other), for virtually anyone who remains on the proverbial fence towards or away from atheism/deism/theism:

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #147]

I would like to point out what I think are two misunderstandings in this video.

First, starting around the 4:43 mark, the narrator says "[Christian apologists] practically brag openly that neither evidence nor arguments played any role in their beliefs, but a combination of warm, squishy feelings and sheer force of will... ." In talking about the inner witness of the Spirit, people like Craig and Plantinga (usually coming from a more Reformed background) do not mean they have warm feelings that they are right and so they are, but that there is an actual, discernable interaction with another Presence that constitutes evidence for the truth of Christianity that goes beyond warm feelings. There are also other Christian thinkers, such as Alistair McGrath, who do speak of the role of arguments in their conversion to Christianity.

Second, I also think Craig's view of how one who has had an experience with the Spirit should not abandon Christianity if they felt the evidence was going against it is a bit more nuanced than what the video provides. In another place where Craig says exactly this, he talks about the context of living in parts of, say communist Russia, where the evidence and reasoning for Christianity was not available, but arguments against it were available. He says that Christians who believe they have experienced the inner witness of the Spirit, but only see arguments against Christianity that they don't have the resources to refute are still warranted in believing Christianity is true. Ultimately, that is seen as true because of what Craig thinks of the case for Christianity and the flaws in the arguments against Christianity. But he's talking about individuals who don't have access to that and what they should believe in their context.

But do I agree with the video's general point that if the evidence would truly point away from Christianity, that Christians should follow the evidence where it leads, even against their interpretation of having an experience with the Spirit. I think the video's call for rationality is warranted. Your approach in this thread goes against this call of the video, however. So, I'd be interested in hearing why you reject the video's general point.

[POI]

I'd be interested in hearing why you reject the video's general point.

I don't reject the video's general point. The video's general point speaks about the veracity of 'personal experiences', and how this line of evidence could be very compelling. Meaning, if this 'god agency' contacted all, using consistent means, this would likely be how most/all become a believer. The video points out, to the contrary, that summoning this 'god' does not produce repeatable/testable results, as this 'god' is very fickle and also gives differing responses, or lack there-of, to any/all who attempt to contact "god" or not. I even created a thread about this myself, in that I asked for God to reach out to me for decades, and nada. Hence, I'm not a believer. (viewtopic.php?t=40313&start=260).

If all received direct contact, it would not be about (whether or not) such a claimed god exists, but instead (whether or not) one <accepts or rejects> this god -- based upon what this god wants.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #149]

I'm talking about this general point. In post 147 you said that it's not arguments that move the faith-needle for you. The video says it's not arguments that move the faith-needle for apologists (but that it's warm, squishy feelings and sheer will). The video states that arguments should move the faith-needle (and offers an argument that it thinks should move us away from theism).

But now you seem to be saying that this argument does move you. So, what exactly are you claiming? Should arguments move us or not?

If so, supposing I could defeat the video’s argument to the point where you offer nothing rational in return and since you offer nothing defeating the KCA, would you change your view?

If not, then are you not disagreeing with this video you shared on that point?