Kalam cosmological argument debunked (again)

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
notachance
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1288
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:17 am
Location: New York

Kalam cosmological argument debunked (again)

Post #1

Post by notachance »

Here is another version of my refutation of Kalam's argument.

Here is the argument:
1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2 The universe began to exist.
3 Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4 This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.
Hers is my refutation
1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Yes, like for example how a table begins to exist. The carpenter who gets a piece of wood and shapes it into a table causes the table to begin existing.
2 The universe began to exist.
ok. Lets allow that for the sake of argument although I have some reservations.
3 Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Yes. Like a table has a cause. Something or someone (which we can call God) took pre-existing material (like the carpenter took a piece of wood) and shaped it into the universe.
4 This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.
I see no logical link between 3 and 4 and this seems like a faith statement to me. But whatever.

I have a a question:
The carpenter who causes the table to exist does so by shaping material that already exists. This seems to apply to everything that ever begins to exist. Sperms and eggs existed before a baby begins to exist. Sodium and Chlorine exist before Sodium Chloride begins to exist. Huge clouds of gas exist before a star begins to exist. Etc.

To claim, without solid empirical evidence, that the universe is the one exception to the universal rule that something needs to already exist in order for something else to begin existing (aka First Law of Thermodynamics) is a monumental case of fallacy by Special Pleading.

Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to assume that "God" caused the universe to come into existence by acting upon some material object that already existed, and shaping it into the universe, much like a carpenter acts upon a piece of wood that already existed, and shapes it into a table.

So here is the question: Where did the stuff that God shaped into the universe come from?

Bonus question: If everything that begins to exist has a cause, what caused God to begin to exist?

Bonus question 2: If your answer to my first bonus questions is something along the lines of "It's possible for God to exist without having began to exist", then you're saying that it's possible for some things to exist without having began to exist. If that is the case, on what basis do you exclude that the universe exists without having began to exist, thus nullifying premise 2 of Kalam's argument?

User avatar
Janx
Sage
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:05 pm
Location: Costa Rica

Re: Kalam cosmological argument debunked (again)

Post #2

Post by Janx »

notachance wrote:
Bonus question: If everything that begins to exist has a cause, what caused God to begin to exist?

Bonus question 2: If your answer to my first bonus questions is something along the lines of "It's possible for God to exist without having began to exist", then you're saying that it's possible for some things to exist without having began to exist. If that is the case, on what basis do you exclude that the universe exists without having began to exist, thus nullifying premise 2 of Kalam's argument?
Hi notachance,

Yep, that's pretty much where I ended this pursuit.

a) Theists claim that God has special properties but refuse to allow special properties for our universe.

b) So what if God made the universe? Knowledge gained: Zero. This is just a feel good concept that has no practical application to our world.

Cheers!

fredonly
Guru
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: Houston
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: Kalam cosmological argument debunked (again)

Post #3

Post by fredonly »

notachance wrote:To claim, without solid empirical evidence, that the universe is the one exception to the universal rule that something needs to already exist in order for something else to begin existing (aka First Law of Thermodynamics) is a monumental case of fallacy by Special Pleading.
Agreed.
notachance wrote:Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to assume that "God" caused the universe to come into existence by acting upon some material object that already existed, and shaping it into the universe, much like a carpenter acts upon a piece of wood that already existed, and shapes it into a table.
So here is the question: Where did the stuff that God shaped into the universe come from?
If there were a God, then he could have turned part (or all) of himself into the material of the universe.
notachance wrote:Bonus question: If everything that begins to exist has a cause, what caused God to begin to exist?
There had to be a finite number of causes in the causal chain, because an actual, completed, infinite is not possible. Therefore there had to be a first cause, and this is the thing that is labeled “God.�
notachance wrote:Bonus question 2: If your answer to my first bonus questions is something along the lines of "It's possible for God to exist without having began to exist", then you're saying that it's possible for some things to exist without having began to exist. If that is the case, on what basis do you exclude that the universe exists without having began to exist, thus nullifying premise 2 of Kalam's argument?
Absolutely, something had to have existed that without having BEGUN to exist. But time itself had to began to exist, because otherwise there would be a completed, actual infinite. Since time is an intrinsic component of spacetime, this implies spacetime (which is the universe) began to exist. Since spacetime (AKA “the universe�) began to exist, premise 1 implies it had a cause.

I think it is plausible to assume a first cause. I believe it is a leap to assume this first cause was a personal agent.

Post Reply