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).

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

P1: Everything that exists must have a cause.

We then must ask what caused the "first" cause.

Proposing an "eternal" god did it only kicks the can down the road, where the more parsimonious response would be to conclude the universe existed "eternally", if only in a prior form. While persimmons are fancy eating, even then we're still bound to speculation.

These sorts of arguments start and stop with one's favored god. Test me here - concede it proves a god, then watch the theist set to say how it's their god it's talking about.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 14 by For_The_Kingdom]

As benchwarmer asked, whatever gave you the idea that you could call a specific thread 'official'? You, like myself, are just a mere user of this website. You are not a moderator or a site administrator. Otseng can come in and designate which thread is 'official', but not you.
Oh and I have to point out. You haven't created a different KCA thread anyway! I just checked, mine is the only KCA thread currently viewable if one clicks on "Christianity and Apologetics". You have blustered for weeks about creating a KCA thread and talking about it; well, here it is. If you refuse to talk here, this shows you to be petty.

Now for the update that I promised to historia.

--------
The Kalam Cosmological Argument fails on two fronts.
1) It states that objects that begin to exist require a cause. It assumes this is true for the universe, and then just assumes that the cause for the universe (the cause that it assumes, i.e. God) is itself cause-less.
2) KCA divides objects into two categories. Objects that begin to exist and objects that do not begin to exist. However, the second group cannot be an empty set, or contain only the one item, otherwise it is just a mask for God. So here is the KCA with the mask in place

P1) Objects that begin to exist require a cause. Objects that do not begin to exist do not require causes.
P2) The universe began to exist
P3) The universe has a cause that is itself uncaused
Conclusion - That cause is God.

Without the mask
P1) Objects that begin to exist require a cause. God does not require a cause
P2) The universe began to exist
P3) The universe has a cause that is itself uncaused
Conclusion - That cause is God, who is uncaused.

Conclusion is in the premises, therefore it is invalid.
Apologies if this still seems a little rough (it honestly does to me). I'm not actually used to laying things out in formal logical arguments.

[rikuoamero]

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

That's factually incorrect.

Atoms are constantly being created inside stars.

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52


Also, atoms definitely do not always exist. We destroy atoms all the time. That's what nuclear plants are for.

Not sure if you want to use the term 'destroy' there. I thought nuclear plants were all about fission, which is splitting the atom. Destroy has overtones of the atom simply ceasing to exist.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by Inigo Montoya]

Inigo, just so we're on the same page, I don't support the KCA at all. I simply got fed up with Kingdom claiming to want to discuss the KCA, so I created this thread, put up the argument and gave what I think defeats it.
I don't agree with any of the premises. Like you, I don't agree with P2, since the Big Bang isn't simply things coming into existence, but rather an expansion of space time from a prior state.

And yes, even if P1 and P2 were supported, there is still a long way to go to naming the first cause 'God'. For all we know, universes are created by a simple minded multi-dimensional creature that doesn't even think about it on a conscious level.

[Inigo Montoya]

Historia just quoted William Lane Craig for support.

My year long mystery is coming together I think.

Appears to reprimand the non-theist more often than not. Just used WLC for support.

Hmmmm.....

I'm inclined to shove Sean Carroll down your throat to show you how silly Craig is, but now I'm basking in my detective abilities.

(Pssst.. I think he might be a Christian!)

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 17 by historia]


P.s.

I didn't say Billy Craig ignored it. I said most who buy this argument ignore it. You were in such a hurry to present Billy for show and tell you forgot your average Kalam swallower is NOT a world famous author and philosopher, eh?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

We're on the same page, Riku. I was responding to the argument, not the idea it was yours. I just wanted to be right out in front saying "God" is a ridiculous stop-gap even granting premise 2 (which is foolish unless you bow at Billy Craig's feet apparently)

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

Of course. Thank you for bringing up trivium in opposition of truth. I think there are a million bureaucrats crying out in delight with you.

However, "exotic atoms," are still atoms, to my mild, and somewhat apathetic, surprise.

But, the fact remains, stars create elements, hydrogen and gravity create stars, decompressing neutrons create hydrogen, decompressing neutrons create hydrogen, decompressed bosons create neutrons. Hydrogen untouched by any other force never changes, and thus, it is about 34% likely that much of the universes' hydrogen has never been anything other than hydrogen, and never will be.

Yeah, so, I will call it out for you. There are entire fields of hydrogen out there that do not follow the Big Bang argument. They may have watched the Big Bang, they may have watched SEVERAL Big Bangs, or been left over from others. Or never touched by a one.

Unchanging, immortal, such that: not even an imagination is required to realize, no creator is needed.

So, all you ever have a need for is protons and electrons, in one state or another.

No need for a god or creator, no matter what the demagogue WCL legerdemains with his words. You have read his work? It's nothing more than the Cosmological Argument re-explained for the even more desperately religious.

You can pay as much attention to him as you like, but there are folks on this very website who pull better stuff than him out of their belly button. If you invoke his argument with me, the best you'll get is a sardonic eyebrow. As objections in this very OP have already indicated.

[historia]

I didn't say Billy Craig ignored it.

I didn't say you did. I offered Craig up as an example of what proponents of the kalam argument have said regarding the very early history of the universe. We could also look at recent works by Peter Bussey, Paul Kabay, Andrew Loke, Mark Nowacki, among others, if you would like to take a broader survey of the field.

I said most who buy this argument ignore it. You were in such a hurry to present Billy for show and tell you forgot your average Kalam swallower is NOT a world famous author and philosopher, eh?

I'm sure the average person on the street (Christian, atheist, or otherwise) doesn't have a deep knowledge about the philosophical, mathematical, or cosmological theories that relate to the kalam argument. Just as the average person on the street doesn't have a deep knowledge about most things.

What is the point, then, of even considering what the average person does or does not know? We'd reach only the most vacuous conclusions.

[historia]

P1: Everything that exists must have a cause.

We then must ask what caused the "first" cause.

As I mentioned above, proponents of the cosmological argument have historically never argued that everything must have a cause. That is a popular mis-presentation of the argument, which you're most likely to see on counter-apologetics websites. It is a straw man.