Kalam Cosmological Argument

[rikuoamero]

A certain user (who will go unnamed) has promised to discuss the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but has so far failed to do so. I thought I might as well introduce it, defeat the argument and so get it out of the way.
The original cosmological argument is thus
P1: Everything that exists must have a cause.
P2: If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.
P3: This cause must, itself, be uncaused.
P4: But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Sharp readers will notice that P3 and P4 contradict P1 (God, an uncaused cause, somehow exists despite the fact that P1 doesn't allow for such a thing), so William Lane Craig introduced the KCA.
Here is the KCA

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause
and we are led to believe that that universe-causer is God.
William Lane Craig is famous for using the KCA, and in order to demonstrate the soundness of P2, he offers the following in defense

(2.1) An infinite temporal regress of events would constitute an actual infinite.
(2.2) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2.3) Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Eagle eyed readers will spot a problem in 2.2. An actual infinite cannot exist? That right there refutes the notion of God, who is often described as being an infinite mystery.

Another way to defeat the argument is to show that the conclusion is in the premises. The Kalam arguer says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. So what about things that do not begin to exist? Oh they don't have causes, says the arguer.
Okay. Give me an example of a thing that does not have a cause.
The only thing the Kalam arguer will say is God. There is nothing else that does not have a cause.
So basically, there are two sets or two types of things, objects that begin to exist and objects that do not begin to exist. However, the ONLY example for the second group that the Kalam arguer will say is God, so the second group might as well simply be labelled God (why bother with the longer label?)

So if we plug that into the KCA
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Whatever does not begin to exist does not have a cause (this second sentence was implied in P1 of the original form of the KCA above)
P2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause and that cause is God.

Now...
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. God does not have a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause and that cause is God.

Wait what? Look what happened there. The conclusion is in the premise, thus making it an invalid logical argument, just like the Modal Ontological Argument, which had the god it was trying to prove exists as being unable to fail to exist in the preface to the argument (thus making it rigged).

[Willum]

[Replying to logical thinking]

That is factually incorrect.
Atoms are NOT being created in stars.
Elements are.

Atoms are going from one kind of atom to another inside stars.

So, nothing is being created, (only transformed) nothing needs creation.
No need for a creator.

[Inigo Montoya]

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Ok. Scarce are the examples, but I can live with this.

P2: The universe began to exist

Not ok. We think the universe began to expand from a prior state. This is not synonymous with the matter/energy simply appearing.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

P2 is unsupported. Conclusion is conjecture at best. And, as I'm sure most know, if support for premise 2 was available, you don't get to name that cause "God" because it's more convenient than being ignorant of said cause.

This was probably cutting edge philosophy a thousand years ago. There's no excuse to be willfully naive in 2016 though.

[historia]

Atoms always existed and always will exist. They need no cause.

I'm afraid the folks at CERN disagree with you.

In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei.

As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I want you guys to bring all of these so called objections and refutations to the official KCA thread (mines).

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

Ankle biting galore today?

So, you collapse atoms and what do you get? Another state of matter. Neutrons, then Bosons.

The point is you need no creator, but thanks for trying to stay in the game with such knowledgeable quibbling.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 14 by For_The_Kingdom]

I want you guys to bring all of these so called objections and refutations to the official KCA thread (mines).

Can I ask what's wrong with this thread? You've claimed for weeks you were going to start a KCA thread then never did. You still haven't from what I can see. I'm also interested in how your thread will be the official one.

[historia]

P2: The universe began to exist

Not ok. We think the universe began to expand from a prior state. This is not synonymous with the matter/energy simply appearing.

By ignoring said state, the inflation epoch is implied as being simultaneous with matter/energy "just appearing" ex nihilo.

I disagree that proponents of the kalam argument have "ignored" this very early state of the universe. William Lane Craig, for example, regularly addresses this point in his published works, public presentations, and debates.

Consider, for example, "The Origin and Creation of the Universe: A Reply to Adolf Grünbaum," The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 43, no. 2 (1992), pgs. 234-35, where he notes that the kalam argument does not rest on the assumption of creation ex nihilo:

The univocal concept of 'cause' employed in premiss and conclusion alike is the concept of efficient causality, that is to say, something which produces or brings into being its effects. Whether such production involves transformation of previously existing materials or creation ex nihilo is completely incidental.

That being said, Craig does think that the scientific evidence shows more than simply that the universe has expanded. He regularly cites contemporary cosmologists who conclude that time itself began at the Big Bang.

For example, in "J. Howard Sobel on the 'Kalam' Cosmological Argument," Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 36, no. 4 (2006), pg. 579, he writes:

Stephen Hawking reports, 'Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.'

...

P.C.W. Davies points out, 'Recent ideas in quantum physics have changed our picture of the origin of time somewhat, but the essential conclusion remains the same: time did not exist before the Big Bang.' Paul Davies, About Time (New York: Simon & Schuster 1995), 132.

And also that the Big Bang constitutes essentially creation ex nihilo, as here in "A Swift and Simple Refutation of the 'Kalam' Cosmological Argument?" Religious Studies, vol. 35, no. 1 (1999), pgs. 65-66:

The initial cosmological singularity constitutes the boundary to physical time and space, so that if the theory is true, we have an origin of the universe ex nihilo. As Barrow and Tipler state, 'At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo'.

Thus, if the model provides a realistic description of the universe, there cannot be physical causal conditions of the Big Bang. As Griinbaum emphasizes, to postulate a physical cause of the Big Bang is simply to contradict the theory.

....

The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem proves that so long as the General Theory of Relativity holds, an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable. A singular beginning of the universe is not ipso facto unphysical or unscientific, though it may be discomfiting.

...

As cosmologist Andrei Linde candidly confesses, 'The most difficult aspect of this problem is not the existence of the singularity itself, but the question of what was before the singularity.... This problem lies somewhere at the boundary between physics and metaphysics'.

Finally, in his more recent lectures he often stresses the importance of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem in postulating an absolute beginning to the universe regardless of whatever model is ultimately chosen to describe its very early history:

Something of a watershed appears to have been reached in the year 2003. In that year, three scientists, Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth, were able to prove that any universe, which is on average expanding throughout its history, cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past space-time boundary.

And what makes their proof so powerful is that it holds independently of any physical description of the early universe . . . Their theorem implies that even if the universe is just part of a wider multi-verse of many universes, even then the multi-verse itself must have an absolute beginning.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications. I quote: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. ... There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Now, he is not ultimately saying that modern cosmology "proves" the universe had a beginning. Craig is nothing if not careful in his assertions. Rather:

Now, of course, scientific results are always provisional. Nevertheless I think it seems pretty clear in this case which way the evidence points. Today, the proponent of Al-Ghazali's argument stands solidly within mainstream science in accepting that the universe began to exist.

Clearly, then, Craig has not ignored the very early state of the universe prior to inflation, but has engaged with much contemporary research in cosmology.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 17 by historia]

You do realize there is nothing special about William Lane Craig? He might as well be you or I for as amazing as his pedigree is.
He is successful defining away theological problems as if they were logical ones. Great if you think words can solve real problems. But, next time try reasoning with your car not to run out of gas.

[historia]

Ankle biting galore today?

No, just appreciating the irony of someone making sweeping claims about the universe while simultaneously getting basic scientific facts wrong. This mix of arrogance and ignorance is what I enjoy most about your posts.

[historia]

You do realize there is nothing special about William Lane Craig?

On the contrary, he is widely regarded as the foremost modern proponent of the kalam cosmological argument. As that is the topic of this thread, we should see what he has to say.