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).

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 52 by Blastcat]

liamconnor wrote:

I have not studied the kalam argument. I have studied Aquinas' demonstrations, however. Whether or not your summary does justice to Kalam, it does not to Aquinas.

P1: is not that everything has a cause. That would obviously be silly, and Aquinas was far from silly. The argument is empirical--everything in our experience has potency--a technical term for which we might substitute "is liable to change".

IF we include God into that "everything"... then god can change too.

That is a typical response from people who have not studied philosophy or logic.

God is not a part of "everything in our experience". As I mentioned lower, we are talking about the world as revealed by the senses.

As I said also, the argument does not necessarily lead to God. It leads to an entity outside of space and time. What the argument does is demolish naturalism.

Not everyone would agree with that, of course. Let's have the mathematicians and theoretical physicists decide that one, shall we?

Physicists (as a I pointed out below---do you read posts first, or just start firing away?) do. Mathematicians hold to an infinitity of numbers. Numbers are not contingent upon each other.


How about you study a little more. I recommend (besides Aquinas of course) Etienne Gilson.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 52 by Blastcat]

liamconnor wrote:

I have not studied the kalam argument. I have studied Aquinas' demonstrations, however. Whether or not your summary does justice to Kalam, it does not to Aquinas.

P1: is not that everything has a cause. That would obviously be silly, and Aquinas was far from silly. The argument is empirical--everything in our experience has potency--a technical term for which we might substitute "is liable to change".

IF we include God into that "everything"... then god can change too.

That is a typical response from people who have not studied philosophy or logic.

God is not a part of "everything in our experience". As I mentioned lower, we are talking about the world as revealed by the senses.

As I said also, the argument does not necessarily lead to God. It leads to an entity outside of space and time. What the argument does is demolish naturalism.

Not everyone would agree with that, of course. Let's have the mathematicians and theoretical physicists decide that one, shall we?

Physicists (as a I pointed out below---do you read posts first, or just start firing away?) do. Mathematicians hold to an infinitity of numbers. Numbers are not contingent upon each other.


How about you study a little more. I recommend (besides Aquinas of course) Etienne Gilson.

How does an argument demolish naturalism? This entity outside of space and time... have you thought about this trap door much? How can an entity exist timelessly and occupy no space? Or do you mean it does occupy space and time, just not the spacetime we're in? Since we have no indication it's possible for any non-abstract entity to exist apart from spacetime, where do you suppose this argument takes you? I swear, the timeless and spaceless loophole must be really attractive until you ponder a moment on what that must imply for the agency. But the argument, conveniently, isn't bothered with the aftermath of explaining that sort of existence.

Granting premise 1 and 2 for giggles, you still have no use for the argument from a Christian perspective except to substitute "cause" with "God." I know you and the long dead AREN'T doing that, but let's be honest. You're totally doing that.

By the way, I want to extend my gratitude for gracing us with your expertise here on the forum. Long have we awaited a philosopher, an historian, and master logician all in one! With each new thread you get to share with us all another field you're at the top of. Cheers professor-

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 53 by historia]

Craig thinks the balance of the scientific evidence does not point in this direction (again see post 17). But, moreover, the idea seems improbable logically. In The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), pgs. 100-101, he argues that a quiescent universe could never, under its own power, stir from its frozen state.

I have not read Craig, except for an excerpt here or there.

The argument here is the problem with efficiency.

But could it not also be said we have a temporal problem? Even if the quiescent state could (per the impossible) stir itself, at what point does this occur? If the universe is temporally infinite, it would've happened an infinite time ago, which is impossible.

I bring it up because it has been a puzzle to me that Aquinas, Aristotle, or other scholastics never bring this up.

[marco]

I bring it up because it has been a puzzle to me that Aquinas, Aristotle, or other scholastics never bring this up.

When we postulate that there had to be a beginning, it has been rightly observed that what happened before takes us from physics into metaphysics. Science leaves us with a mystery not an answer and all we can do is speculate.

After expansion we may have had a contraction to a zero point or a singularity, which would then produce a Big Bang and the tale would start again in an infinite succession of tales. And all godless.

[Kenisaw]

I didn't know where to jump into this thread, so I picked here. Nice to see everyone by the way, hope your holiday weekend was nice if you live in the U.S. Anyway, here goes...

The proponent of KCA looks at things in the world and sees that they have causes.

Agreed.

He then makes a mistake and assumes that this holds true for the universe as a whole.

I'm not sure I appreciate this point. But let's examine your objections.

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.

Sometimes the properties of things in a set do apply to the set as a whole. Consider, for example, a wall in which each brick is made of stone. In that case, the whole wall is made of stone.

Well, except for the mortar maybe...

If every part of the universe is contingent, then it would seem to follow that the universe as a whole is contingent.

Is time contingent? At first glance one might say yes because we know time is relative, EXCEPT that time never changes for any one person. They always experience it the same way. It may appear that someone else experienced it faster or slower, but in fact that person also experienced it the same. Time doesn't change. So I don't know that we can say that the entire universe is contingent...

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.

As I already mentioned above (see post 17), by 'cause' the kalam argument means efficient, rather than material, cause. So, while the second premise of the argument states that the universe began to exist, whether this was ex nihilo is incidental to the argument itself.

Therefore, it is possible to accept the kalam argument while also conceiving of a perfectly quiescent, changeless universe that suddenly began to change, thus initiating the finite series of past events.

Craig thinks the balance of the scientific evidence does not point in this direction (again see post 17). But, moreover, the idea seems improbable logically. In The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), pgs. 100-101, he argues that a quiescent universe could never, under its own power, stir from its frozen state.

While this is logically possible, it does not seem very reasonable. For this means that this event occurred entirely without eterminate conditions for its happening. The universe existed in a static, absolutely immobile state from eternity and then inexplicably, without any conditions whatsoever, a first event occurred...such a picture of the universe is singularly unconvincing.

So, even on this view, some external cause is necessary to give an explanation for the universe.

Hmmm. I don't know. If the universe is indeed nothing as it appears to be, but just a different expression of nothing in its current form, then nothing has really changed. The net sum is still nothing. Even Craig would admit that the net sum of the universe is static in this way...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 65 by Kenisaw]

But Craig wouldn't have the brains to understand it.
Am I the only one who has read this guy's work?!

[historia]

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

It is an interesting argument and appears logically sound.

The conclusion may be valid but it is sound only if the premises are true.

Yes, of course, this is true of all deductive arguments.

Premise 2 is not a statement of fact but one of belief.

Yes, and so is the converse statement that the universe did not begin to exist.

As is true of virtually every argument humans make, there is no pretense here to "proof." Rather, the claim is that the best philosophical arguments and scientific evidence makes it more likely than not that the universe began to exist.

I mentioned this already in post 17, but perhaps it bears some further explanation. Craig, as usual, is helpful here:

Now, in saying that the cosmogonic evidence confirms premise two, I am not saying that we are certain that premise two is true.

Too many people mistakenly equate knowledge with certainty. When they say that we do not know that the universe began to exist, what they really mean is that we are not certain that the universe began to exist.

But, of course, certainty is not the relevant standard here. The question is whether premise two is more plausible in light of the evidence than its contradictory.

As Sean Carroll reminds us, "Science isn't in the business of proving things. Rather, since judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. Unsuccessful theories are never disproven, as we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena; they just fade away as better theories gain acceptance (Sean Carol, "Does the Universe Need God?").

Science can not force you to accept the beginning of the universe. You can always concoct concoct elaborate schemes to explain away the evidence. But those schemes will not fare very well when judged by the aforementioned scientific virtues.

Even many who have expressed skepticism about premise two admit that it is more plausibly true than not.

Back to your argument:

It may well be true but whatever we conclude from this statement holds true only in so far as this assumption is true.

This is the second time in this thread we've been confronted with the charge that proponents of the kalam argument are merely making "assumptions."

This is manifestly not the case. Craig and other proponents of the kalam argument always present reasons (both philosophical and cosmological) for accepting both premises in the argument.

To be sure, this syllogistic form of the argument doesn't include those reasons. No simple summary of a deductive argument would. Rather, you must read the published works of kalam proponents for that.

If we can accept the notion of infinity then infinite existence should not be an impossibility.

The notion of infinity within mathematics in not difficult to grasp, I think.

But whether an actual infinite can exist in the real world -- or, even more precisely, whether an actually infinite series of events prior to the present one have occured in the real world -- cuts to the heart of the matter.

Craig says no, and I'm inclined to agree.

Postulating a cause external to the sphere of our deliberations is also a dubious exercise. It would appear we are plastering over a crack in our reasoning powers.

If so, then I'm afraid this renders much of modern cosmology "dubious," since there is quite a bit of speculation in that discipline currently concerning multi-verses and the like, all of which lie "external to the sphere of our deliberations."

Rather than reflecting a deficiency in our reasoning, I think it reflects the creative imagination of humans to make sense of the world. Which has, needless to say, historically led to important insights and conclusions. Why dismiss it?

[Willum]

Break it down!

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Bump-boop-ba-da-dump!

So babies begin!
Bump-boop-ba-da-dump!

Babies have cause!
"What's your line?" Bump-boop-ba-da-dump!

Babies-
trees and flowers begin,
But despite that -you still don't win -

'cause its the immature mind,
that believes this kind - ,
Of logic, only to find -

"What's your line?"

Babies and trees begin with atoms-
so you don't win,
'Cause atoms
don't begin -!
Atoms - don't begin.
Bump-boop-ba-da-dump!
Bump-boop-ba-da-dump!

Since atoms,
Don't begin,
They don't have cause - they've always been.
"Come on let's work!"
Bump-boop-ba-da-dump!

"Come on let's work!"
They don't have cause -

They don't have cause -!

"Come on let's work!"
"What's your line?"
"What's your line?"

With~out...cause
Don't begin...
Don't begin!

[WinePusher]

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.

This is an equivocation in terminology.

By "infinite" here Craig means a set that has an endless number of definite and discreet finite particulars. For example, the set of natural numbers. This is a quantitative definition.

By contrast, when Christians or theists describe God as "infinite" they are simply using that word as an umbrella term to describe God as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and so on. These are all qualitative attributes.

To say that God is an "infinite mystery," for example, does not mean that God is composed of an infinite number of discrete mystery "parts." Rather, this is just a loose way of saying God is a great mystery.

Regardless of whatever Craig's intentions are, he's wrong. First of all, most mainstream theists typically do not purport that God is infinite. Rather, what we tend to say is that God is eternal, existing exogenously outside of space and time, implying that the defining characteristics of God are beyond our comprehension.

Second of all, the concept of infinity has a very narrow and precise definition that is actually highly applicable to many real world subjects. We have denumerable and non-denumerable infinities, and denumerable infinities are a very real thing and can be viewed as an 'actual infinity.' But I agree with your main point, the fact that variations of 'infinity' do exist in reality doesn't contradict the concept of an eternal God existing. Rikuamero's objection has destroyed many times and even atheists (public atheists IRL) do not use it cause they know it's flawed, illogical and misinformed. It's tiring to see these weak, thoroughly debunked arguments constantly being recycled by the nonbelievers on this forum.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 61 by liamconnor]

liamconnor wrote:

I have not studied the kalam argument. I have studied Aquinas' demonstrations, however. Whether or not your summary does justice to Kalam, it does not to Aquinas.

P1: is not that everything has a cause. That would obviously be silly, and Aquinas was far from silly. The argument is empirical--everything in our experience has potency--a technical term for which we might substitute "is liable to change".

IF we include God into that "everything"... then god can change too.

That is a typical response from people who have not studied philosophy or logic.

God is not a part of "everything in our experience". As I mentioned lower, we are talking about the world as revealed by the senses.

I can't experience the whole universe, maybe there is a god IN IT.. maybe not, I don't know. But one of the meanings of "universe" is "everything that there is". If you are saying that GOD IS ... then it is a PART of everything that there is.

And you are right.. didn't study philosophy or logic.

As I said also, the argument does not necessarily lead to God. It leads to an entity outside of space and time. What the argument does is demolish naturalism.

That ENTITY might be completely NATURAL... so it does NOT demolish naturalism to one who hasn't studied philosophy or logic.

Not everyone would agree with that, of course. Let's have the mathematicians and theoretical physicists decide that one, shall we?

Physicists (as a I pointed out below---do you read posts first, or just start firing away?) do.

It's a lot more fun to just fire away after not studying philosophy or logic.

Some PHYSICISTS agree with you and some don't Some mathematicians agree with you and others don't. As soon as any of them get FACTS... and then tell us that they have RESOLVED those issues, let a non philosopher non logician non reader of posts know, will ya?

Until then, I suggest that those who HAVE studied philosophy and logic stop PRETENDING.

Mathematicians hold to an infinitity of numbers. Numbers are not contingent upon each other.


How about you study a little more. I recommend (besides Aquinas of course) Etienne Gilson.

How about you don't fallaciously appeal to authority after having impugned my education?

LET IT BE KNOWN:

I have not studied philosophy or logic.
To those who think that disqualifies me from debating or asking questions, I say, JUST TAKE A PASS.