Kalam Cosmological Argument, Premise One

[Blastcat]

Hi gang !

Once again, while showering, something came to mind...

William Lane Craig is famous for his re-working of the old Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God. Here it is in a nut-shell for those who might need a bit of a refresher. Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:

______________

The argument:

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
P2. The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

C1. The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:

P3. The universe has a cause;
P4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

C. An uncased, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

____________

This thread wants to take a good look at P1. that is, the very first premise of the argument that states :"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

As in all arguments, if we accept that this premise is true, we move on to the next premise, and so on, to it's conclusion that must follow from one to the next without any gaps.

Now, if we cannot demonstrate that a premise in the argument is TRUE, then the argument may be VALID, but not sound. The conclusion we get from an argument is just as weak as it's weakest link, so to speak.

So, what about the first premise?

Is it TRUE that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"?

I am a skeptic at heart, so I am suspicious about that.


Let me give some preliminary reasons, that I got while showering with my Spiderman "Spidey Sense" Soft Soap ®... ( very refreshing ) :


1. Right off the bat, I would have my skeptical spidey sense tingling by the sentence itself. It seems to imply that some things begin to exist, and that others may not begin to exist. I'm not too sure what that means... What does it MEAN to say that something has a "beginning" to it's existence? What does it MEAN to say that not all things begin to exist? Which kinds of things begin to exist, and which kinds of things don't begin to exist? Now, we need rigorous definitions, don't we? Anyone has those? I sure don't. The more that I look, the more confused I get.

2. It doesn't say what hasn't begun to exist. But I suspect that the case is very well chosen. Some people might protest that there is a difference between saying that something doesn't begin to exist and saying that something hasn't yet begun to exist. We are now having to make a distinction that is very subtly grammatical.

3. Of course, if something has not yet begun to exist, it cannot yet exist. But if we are trying to prove that something has caused the universe, it at least has to exist in some way. Otherwise, the argument... is weird.

4. The Kalam is very old.. It wasn't always phrased the way that WLC does. In fact, WLC has introduced the word "begins to" ... because before we could ask "Who caused God?". So, it seems that Craig wants to save the argument by replacing "exists" by "begins to exist". If only GOD doesn't "begin to exist", then I see special pleading going on.

5. Craig says this about the nature of "God's" infinity:

"God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on."

In other words, when Craig uses the term "infinite" to refer to a being who doesn't begin, he isn't talking about numbers, but characteristics. I "began to exist" in the middle 50's. See how that's a number? I could have started counting the years of my "existence" at 0, or 1, or some other NUMBER, but it's weird to think that we don't COUNT things without numbers.. but if there are no NUMBERS, to me, it's weird to say that something began or didn't begin. Time is a series of numbers, one after another.. seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, years.. eons.. we count those, because they are NUMBERED. If it can't be counted, I don't know how it can be called "time", and if it isn't "time" we are talking about.. causation seems a bit weird to be talking about.. and to begin.. implies "time"... so again.. very weird.

So, when I read "Whatever BEGINS to exist.." I think "What on earth is Craig talking about"? A quality or a measurable instance of time? If the word BEGINS is an instance of time that is measurable for everything ELSE but "God", this is special pleading once again.

6. The second part.. "A CAUSE" ... this is the really REALLY weird part.. and I will keep it short. You see, Craig doesn't like infinite regresses.. so, the universe can't be it's own cause due to an infinite regress.. what cause the cause of the cause.. and so on.. Physical matter NOT of this universe can't be the cause because.. what's the cause of THAT.. and so on.. more infinite regress. The very ODD thing about Craig's solution, "God", is that it is eternal in the past.. In other words, it seems to "cause the cause of the cause of the cause.. " in an infinite regress. To me, and this is just preliminary thinking, he solves one infinity.. "Cause" with another infinity "God".


Just some thoughts.. I have my doubts about the first premise.

_____________

So, here are the questions for debate:


1. Is it true that things that have a beginning have a cause?
2. How something hasn't begun to exist, continue to exist?

_____________

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 20 by Blastcat]

In the real world, however, things just don't up and happen. There is always a reason, though we might not know it. There is also a great deal of freedom, creativity, spontaneity as well. Even the tiniest particles have minds, can make choices. Everything self-creates, but not in a vacuum. Entities are influenced by their past, but also by possibilities for relevant novelty. These new-found possibilities have to come from God, from some transcendental imagination, outside the box or system. Otherwise, the present would simply repeat the past. All entities, then, can transcend the tyranny of the given, the drive the world, the past, imposes upon them to repeat itself. Entities, therefore, can behave in unpredictable, surprising ways, appear to suddenly pop in or out of something.

I view all existence as the actualization of a potential to exist a certain way. So, before the universe existed, there were fist possibilities for the universe to exist. Such possibilities, in and of themselves, are abstract; that is, they are absolutely indifferent to their entrance into time and space. Red, blue, green, yellow. Anything can be red or blue or green or yellow. The possibilities red, blue, green, and yellow don't care, are wholly indifferent as to the where when, and if of their actualization. Possibilities do not actualize themselves. It takes the decision of an actual entity to do that. Possibilities do not exist alone in a vacuum. If you think of the creative potentialities for the universe as analogous to imaginative ideas, what I am saying is imaginative ideas do not exist in a vacuum. They exist in an actual entity, in an imagination. So, before, the creation of teh world, there had to be first in place a transcendental imagination, i.e., God, to select our the various possibilities and to bring them into play, into the actualization process, , say let there be a world, let their be light, so to speak. So I agree with the basic structure of Craig's argument, though I have a much different view of God and also of creation than he has.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 17 by Blastcat]

"Classical theism" is a term coined by the famous American philosopher-theologian Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000). It denotes the traditional model or picture we have of God as he is in his own nature that comes from the major creeds, confessions, and church fathers. In short, it describes God as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable (changeless), wholly independent of creation, standing in no need of the universe, standing separate and apart from the universe, outside the whole order of creation, the supreme cause, never the effect. God is the Unmoved Mover, wholly indifferent toward the world.
"Neo-classical theism," another term coined by Hartshorne, argues that classical theism has a too-lopsided view of divine perfection. If it is a virtue to be a cause, it is also a virtue to be an effect, to be deeply moved and affected by others. In neo-classical theism, God and the universe are understood as mutually interdependent. God grows as the world goes. No God, no world;no world, no God. In Hartshorne, the universe is understood as the body of God, an idea I find most appealing. I view creation as God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization as a genuine personality.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 21 by hoghead1]




[center]A whole lot of claims.
Part One[/center]

In the real world, however, things just don't up and happen. There is always a reason, though we might not know it.

Interesting concept.
So, the real world itself might have a reason, though we might not know what it is.
Interesting concept, admitting that we don't know how things might happen.

I don't think that creationists admit to that about the universe itself.
I think creationists claim to know.

But you might want to consider that when you are trying to prove that something is TRUE, you need to do more than simply assert that it is.

Sometimes in debates, it gets really important to include the phrase "In my opinion", so that we don't mistake your comment for a FACTUAL claim. And keep in mind that in these debates, we are asked to back up our claims with EVIDENCE.

There is also a great deal of freedom, creativity, spontaneity as well.

What an interesting hypothesis.
"Creativity"... kind implies "creation", doesn't it?

If the premise IMPLIES a "creator", the cosmological argument is circular.
And again, your statement represents a claim without any evidential support.

Even the tiniest particles have minds, can make choices.

I'd like to see the evidence for that rather startling claim.

Everything self-creates, but not in a vacuum.

You seem to know a lot about "everything".
I will remain skeptical of your claimed ability.

Entities are influenced by their past, but also by possibilities for relevant novelty.

I don't know what that means.
Maybe "things come into being and then can change".

If so, I agree.
I don't think we are more ahead proving a creator by the truism.

These new-found possibilities have to come from God, from some transcendental imagination, outside the box or system.

I see, "they have to" come from God.
Interesting hypothesis, but if that idea is embedded in the first premise of the cosmological argument, the argument is circular.

Otherwise, the present would simply repeat the past.

I'd be interested in the evidence for that.

All entities, then, can transcend the tyranny of the given, the drive the world, the past, imposes upon them to repeat itself.

"The tyranny of the given, the drive of the world".

I would take that to mean that no creator, outside the box metaphysical being is needed for things to change.

Entities, therefore, can behave in unpredictable, surprising ways, appear to suddenly pop in or out of something.

You seem to be saying that entities that don't exist can "behave" even before they exist. Since entities need to exist before they can behave, you are saying that things exist before existing.

That statement is as self-contradictory as "married bachelor".

I view all existence as the actualization of a potential to exist a certain way.

The "actualization of a potential".
I suppose that everything is the "actualization of a potential", even God.

I don't see how we are further ahead with that tautology.

So, before the universe existed, there were fist possibilities for the universe to exist.

That presents an infinite regress of possibilities. Before the possibilities for the universe to exist, there had to have been possibilities that the possibilities existed and so on into infinity.. back, back as far as we can imagine. And then some. Craig doesn't like infinite regresses. I think his cosmological argument is against them.

Such possibilities, in and of themselves, are abstract; that is, they are absolutely indifferent to their entrance into time and space.

I agree, "possibilities" are quite careless that way.
In my opinion, concepts haven't been demonstrated to have MINDS.

Possibilities do not actualize themselves.

A possibility is not a "thing", or a "being", it's a "concept", and hence can't really DO anything at all. A human concept is the product of human thinking.

It takes the decision of an actual entity to do that.

I agree that "possibilities" aren't "actual entities" and that only thinking entities can think. Humans are thinking entities.

Possibilities do not exist alone in a vacuum.

That makes sense.
If there are more than ONE possibility, THEY ARE NOT ALONE. Maybe, there are INFINITE possibilities, I don't know, because I can't COUNT them.

But if the cosmological argument is attacking an infinity, we should stay AWAY from any kind of infinity. Otherwise, we would be accepting a special pleading argument.

I don't accept question begging arguments or premises. I am wondering if the first premise of Craig's Kalam argument doesn't include special pleading AND question begging. It's such a short statement. I think the genius of it is how many logical fallacies it implies.

And I do consider it to be rhetorical genius.
I don't consider a premise so riddled with fallacies can be acceptable in a serious argument. But since I'm a skeptic, I want to see what others think about it.

It would be helpful if some apologist could make sense out of it.
You never know, I might get lucky.

Maybe Craig's argument isn't as HORRIBLE as I think that it is.

If you think of the creative potentialities for the universe as analogous to imaginative ideas, what I am saying is imaginative ideas do not exist in a vacuum.

Well, I don't happen to think of creative potentialities for the universe as analogous to imaginative ideas, but you certainly can. Humans can be creative. I have no reason to think that potentialities can be creative. But if you are talking about humans, I agree. We don't live in a vacuum. WE ARE NOT ALONE

If you want to convince me that potentialities are able to be "creative", then you might want to bring your evidence.

They exist in an actual entity, in an imagination.

I agree that our imaginative ideas are to be found in our imagination.
But I agree because I'm thinking about humans.

I know that humans have very good imaginations.
I look at a rock, and have to tell ya.. I dont seem much in the way of their "imagination".

So, before, the creation of teh world, there had to be first in place a transcendental imagination, i.e., God, to select our the various possibilities and to bring them into play, into the actualization process, , say let there be a world, let their be light, so to speak.

I don't think that there just "had to be" anything of the kind. I see a leap of logic that I won't follow quite yet, until you plug the gap.

I'm not convinced of a transcendental imagination, i.e., God, yet, my friend.
You seem to base your reasoning upon your beliefs and since I don't SHARE your beliefs, building an argument on yours is not going to work for ME. I think you could only convince someone who ALREADY believes in a a transcendental imagination, i.e., God in the first place. And that's precisely the problem with Craig's argument as well.

If the argument is supposed to convince OUTSIDERS to the faith, it fails completely.

So I agree with the basic structure of Craig's argument, though I have a much different view of God and also of creation than he has.

Well, that's an interesting statement.. I'd love to know how your ideas differ from Craig's. But one thing at a time, right?


____________

Questions:

• 
  1. What evidence have you used to conclude that "In the real world, however, things just don't up and happen. There is always a reason, though we might not know it. "?
  2.What evidence have you used to conclude that "There is also a great deal of freedom, creativity, spontaneity as well."
  3. If one includes the conclusion into a premise, an argument is invalid due to begging the question. Doesn't "creativity" IMPLY a creator?
  4.You state that "even the tiniest particles have minds, can make choices." What evidence have you used to conclude that?
  5. Why do you say that "Everything self-creates"? Do you happen to KNOW everything? What evidence have you used to conclude that everything does in fact, self-create?
  6.Could you elaborate on what you meant by "Entities are influenced by their past, but also by possibilities for relevant novelty? " I am guessing that it means "Things can change", but I'm not quite sure.
  7.Why do you say that :"These new-found possibilities have to come from God, from some transcendental imagination, outside the box or system. " Do you have any evidence?
  8. Could you explain how things don't change unless there is an external mind to change them, even though you say that all things have minds of their own and can make choices and that all entities, then, can transcend the tyranny of the given?
  9. You go on to say that everything self creates.. then why is there a need for an "outside the box" creator?
  10. How can something which does not yet exist "Behave" in any way?
  11. You have been talking a lot about "everything" in your post, but I don't think that you include "God" in that everything... how do you defend your reasoning against the obvious charge of "special pleading"?
  12. If everything has a mind and can make choices, why can't they decide to change without an external mind to decide for them?
  13.Before any possibilities can exist, there must have been possibilities for the possibilities and so on. When you say :"So, before the universe existed, there were fist possibilities for the universe to exist. ", how does this not represent an infinite regress of possibilities?
  14. Do you see any point of arguing against the rationality of an infinite regress with another one? I don't, quite frankly.
  15.Why would anyone think of the creative potentialities for the universe as analogous to imaginative ideas?
  16. Do you think that Craig's cosmological argument is at all intended to convince outsiders to the faith?
  
  

____________

[JLB32168]

So from where I'm standing, the conclusion that they reach (that God is an uncaused cause) is right there in Premise 1, and thus it's an invalid logical argument.

Except that most scientist posit that something always existed and that this something – the singularity – created energy, some of which eventually became matter after it cooled down.

Therefore, even science theorizes that something always existed and that this uncreated existence was the origin of all things after that that didn’t always exist.

The only difference here is that the theist calls this uncreated cause “God� while the atheist or other skeptic says that the theist’s view is illogical (even though not a few scientists agree that something had to have always existed and caused everything else to exist.)

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 22 by hoghead1]



[center]
Classical theism vs. Neo-classical theism.
Part Two.[/center]

"Classical theism" is a term coined by the famous American philosopher-theologian Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000). It denotes the traditional model or picture we have of God as he is in his own nature that comes from the major creeds, confessions, and church fathers. In short, it describes God as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable (changeless), wholly independent of creation, standing in no need of the universe, standing separate and apart from the universe, outside the whole order of creation, the supreme cause, never the effect. God is the Unmoved Mover, wholly indifferent toward the world.

It's interesting that he describes a THEISTIC god as passionless and lacking in compassion. It's almost deism. I don't think that Craig's god is quite like that.

"Neo-classical theism," another term coined by Hartshorne, argues that classical theism has a too-lopsided view of divine perfection. If it is a virtue to be a cause, it is also a virtue to be an effect, to be deeply moved and affected by others. In neo-classical theism, God and the universe are understood as mutually interdependent. God grows as the world goes. No God, no world;no world, no God.

God is dependent on the WORLD in order to exist. No world, no God... hmm
Interesting idea.

In Hartshorne, the universe is understood as the body of God, an idea I find most appealing.

I use the label "pantheism" for that idea.

I view creation as God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization as a genuine personality.

It's interesting that you believe that something which is merely potentially real is real enough to UNCONSCIOUSLY desire it's own existence. I can't imagine how that could happen.

So,

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by your terms, I would have NEVER guessed.
____________

Questions:

• 
  1. Is Hartshorne describing a theistic god when describing it as passionless?
  2.Is the god of the Bible passionless?
  3.Is Craig trying to prove that a passionless god exists by his cosmological argument?
  4.You say that "No world, no God", is "God's" existence dependent on the world?
  5. How is saying that "the universe is understood as the body of God" different from pantheism?
  6.How can a mere potentiality self-actualizatize into consciousness and as a genuine personality without external agency to CAUSE that transformation?
  7. If the universe is the body of god, and hence equivalent to "God", how is that different than saying that the universe created itself?
  8.If there is no BODY PARTS to "God", how can "God" have a body?
  

____________

[rikuoamero]

So from where I'm standing, the conclusion that they reach (that God is an uncaused cause) is right there in Premise 1, and thus it's an invalid logical argument.

Except that most scientist posit that something always existed and that this something – the singularity – created energy, some of which eventually became matter after it cooled down.

Therefore, even science theorizes that something always existed and that this uncreated existence was the origin of all things after that that didn’t always exist.

The only difference here is that the theist calls this uncreated cause “God� while the atheist or other skeptic says that the theist’s view is illogical (even though not a few scientists agree that something had to have always existed and caused everything else to exist.)

I'm talking about a simple logical argument, JLB. You've now wandered out of philosophy and into the realm of science and evidence.
In terms of pure logic, Kalam fails. Here's how I see Premise 1

P1 - Everything that begins to exist has a cause. What does not begin to exist does not have a cause
The coloured sentence is the 'hidden' sentence in P1. If we use set theory, we have two sets, one labelled BE (Begins to Exist) and one labelled NBE (Not Begins to Exist).
However, for the sets to mean anything, they would have to contain more than one object.
A Christian would not allow anything other than God to be a thing that does Not Begin to Exist. NBE is a mask for God, since God is the only thing in that set. So now, P1 can be rewritten as
P1 - Everything that begins to exist has a cause. God does not have a cause
If I include the rest of Kalam, what makes it invalid becomes clear.

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

The conclusion (what is after Therefore) is in P1. The conclusion says there is an uncaused creator/God, just like the hidden sentence of P1.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 25 by Blastcat]

From anything I have seen so far in Craig, he definitely holds with classical theism and therefore with a passionless, immutable God. The whole notion of a passionless Deity comes from traditional or classical Christian dogma, not Deism. Many Christians may be surprised by that, but then again, many do not pay any attention to the major creeds, confessions , and writings of the church fathers. The description I gave of God as void of body, parts, parsons, immutable, independent, for example, is almost word-for-word from the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm argued that god is without compassion. The traditional Christian model of God came largely from the influx of Hellenic philosophy into the church, not Scripture. I can't emphasize that point enough. Scriptures attributes great emotion to God and also change, the latter in around 100 passages. However, the church swept these away, arguing they were mere figures of speech that had nothing to do with the actual reality of God., which is impassible and immutable.

The term "panentheism" (all in God) is preferred to "pantheism." The reason is that the latter term can mean God is just another name for the universe. In panentheism or neo-classical theism, the universe is part of the being of God, is in God, but not synonymous with the whole reality of God. God is identifiable with the world, but not wholly so. A blanket equation cannot be drawn between them. God transcends the world, just as my mind transcends my body. The world many not fully represent God's character, just as my body many not fully represent mine, as when I am sick or it doesn't fully cooperate with what I want to do.

I may have confused you here on a point, so let me clarify. When I spoke about the unconscious side of God, I said also that the potentials have to exist in some actuality. So I am positing the unconscious side as a kind actuality. I am also positing a creative urge, a wish, a drive to self-actualize as a personality. So again, yes, you could think of the unconscious side of God as a kind of actuality. But it is certainly not a whole or complete account of God.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Here's a beautiful rebuttal of Dr. Craig's argument.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/co ... d_premise/

[JLB32168]

I'm talking about a simple logical argument, JLB. You've now wandered out of philosophy and into the realm of science and evidence.

No – I’m saying that the statement, “All things are created except God creates a special pleading to accommodate God, which is illogical� is wrong. Many scientists say that something always existed that had no beginning. How can this be? Space and time aren’t two different things but is space/time. In the absence of space, there is no time; therefore, something always was, according to many scientists (i.e. a singularity of infinite density and infinite heat.) That uncreated singularity – unlike anything after it – created energy and matter and with it space/time.

If all of this is true then it means there isn’t an infinite regression of causes – that indeed the buck stopped somewhere (i.e. an uncaused cause existed) and this is the opinion of not a few scientists. The Christian refers to this uncaused cause as “God� and to say that the Christian creates a special pleading to exempt God from the same criteria applied to all created things, is erroneous. It's that simple. If you take issue with the logic here then take it up with the scientists, many of which are also atheists, who posit this.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 29 by JLB32168]

JLB, does an actual infinity exist in reality?
also

Has God become part of/interacted with reality?