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).

[Inigo Montoya]

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.

This is misleading. As you've shown already, you only seem concerned with "real" proponents, implying any without a stout background in philosophy or related fields aren't worth discussing. There are a slew of religious folk (millions) that LOVE Kalam and use it in chat rooms, conversation, forums, and video. Far more are the casual proponents numbered than whatever pro/pedigree folk you seem to think is required to bandy the argument about.

Which, inevitably, leads me to of course point out that you haven't actually weighed in on the KCA. As usual, you arrive to police how something is represented or misrepresented without ever actually getting your own toes wet.

You know, it's curious. Most members expend their energies trying to argue their way to a decisive end. You seem rather to want to scratch and claw your way back to neutral territories whenever possible, limiting the exposure of your own beliefs ( still a mystery) at all costs.

Care to comment/defend/argue the KCA?

[rikuoamero]

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.

The original CA DOES say that. It's in my OP, it's premise 1. Everything that exists must have a cause. Of course, anyone with a functioning brain could see that the theist who proposed this argument violated Premise 1 by having the cause of the universe itself be uncaused.
Now if you meant to say the Kalam cosmological argument, then yes, you're right. Just be more careful in what you say. There is that difference between the original argument and Kalam.
The proponent of KCA looks at things in the world and sees that they have causes. He then makes a mistake and assumes that this holds true for the universe as a whole. The three errors here are
1) Mistaking properties of the set for the things in the set. Think of the universe as the ultimate set. Things within this set have causes. However, this does not mean that the universe itself has a cause.
2) When the theist says 'causes', and gives examples, he mentions things like the building of a house, or the drawing of a painting. However, these are not comparable to what he wants to get to. The theist is trying to get to creation ex nihilo, but is using as examples things that are merely re-arrangements of already existing matter. If the theist admits this, then he says that the 'stuff' that makes up the universe has always existed, and thus, there was no creation. Hence, no need for a creator.
2a) Related to the examples in 2). Things like the building of a house do not have a single cause. They have many causes. Many people are involved in the building of a house. So even the things the theist proposes as examples or analogies to try to get a single cause of the universe are anything but!

[JoeyKnothead]

Delete post. Sorry folks, I was in a spell.

[Willum]

[Replying to Inigo Montoya]

Yes, I agree, although, somewhat in hindsight to your post. WCL's KCA does seem to be an argument to persuade the uneducated.

For example, someone said the Big Band was an Ex Nihlo argument, and that is just wrong. No cosmologist, astronomer, stellar physicist, etc., would ever make that claim, and not be laughed out of their esteemed company.

Nor, in hindsight, would any of them, state, in hindsight, that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything.

They certainly couldn't swear to the little lost matter that accounts for the "Dark Matter," in the universe.

And if they did, they should refund in their degrees.

[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.

Why do you imagine that proponents of the kalam argument merely "assume" these things? Every one I've read provides philosophical and cosmological arguments to support the claim that the universe has a cause, and offers reasons for thinking God is that cause.

You might disagree with said arguments and reasons, but you can't simply dismiss them as "assumptions," as you have here.

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.

I'm afraid I still don't understand your objection here.

Your conclusion -- God caused the universe -- is never stated in any of your premises. To be sure, God is mentioned in your conclusion and one of the premises (so is the universe). But this does not make the argument invalid. Far from it: The conclusion of every deductive argument must necessarily refer to things in the premises otherwise it would be nonsensical.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 35 by historia]

OK, I think we can do this:
Name one specific thing that begins to exist. I think this conversation will resolve issues to everyone's satisfaction.

[jgh7]

What does it mean for God to be uncaused?

Does it mean he existed infinitely back in time?
Does it mean he existed finitely back in time and came into existence from nothing?
Does it mean something else?

[wiploc]

What does it mean for God to be uncaused?

Does it mean he existed infinitely back in time?
Does it mean he existed finitely back in time and came into existence from nothing?
Does it mean something else?

It just means he didn't have a cause. Phrased differently, he is not an effect.

Virtual particles pop into existence uncaused. They don't extend infinitely back in time. Neither do they come into existence from nothing.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Can I ask what's wrong with this thread?

Nothing.

You've claimed for weeks you were going to start a KCA thread then never did.

Small steps, not leaps and bounds.

You still haven't from what I can see. I'm also interested in how your thread will be the official one.

It will be my official one.

[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.

And as I told benchwarmer, it will be my official KCA thread. How about that?

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.

First off, regarding the timetable of me creating the KCA thread...everything will happen on MY time, not yours. I am not under any obligation to satisfy your impatience regarding a thread that I maintain and continue to maintain that I will eventually post.

The only reason I kept mentioning the KCA thread is because certain objections to the MOA were concepts that I thought applied more to a future thread that I will create, which is the KCA thread.

I was going to create the KCA thread once the heat from the MOA thread died down, because this is one case where I'd rather not walk and chew gum at the same time...but I would rather deal with ONE argument at a time and once that heat from that argument suffices, move to the next one.

And the reason I have this one at a time approach is because, I can't speak for you or others; but for me, discussing these subjects takes a lot of mental energy, and responding to the dozens posts in the MOA is more than enough mental drainage...and I didn't want to add on to that with another thread, a thread which will have a life of its own, and perhaps maybe even a bigger life.

So again, once the heat from the MOA sufficed, which it seems like it is..I was going to create a KCA thread...an ULTIMATE KCA thread.

But of course, you acted as if you were so dang impatience and had nothing else better to do but to but to jump the gun ahead of me and create a KCA thread.

Fine. All I ask is that my thread not be taken down/off because of this thread..which will probably have the same title.

But its cool. Handle your business, and I will handle mines.