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?

_____________

[Willum]

[Replying to hoghead1]

I don't need to prove something I don't believe in, that is completely on you. If you had a single point for any creator, it'd be demonstrable and not conjectural.

I believe that reality is in a constant of state of flux. Everything changes. Moment to moment, each entity is something new. The "self" you are right now did not exist five minutes ago. No thinker thinks twice. No atom exists twice either. Plus, you are viewing atoms as passive, inert, dead matter. I am viewing "atoms," the building blocks of reality, as momentary unities of experience.

This is a fine belief, but it does not in any way dismiss that the building block of matter, atoms, always have existed and always will.
I may not have existed as I am five minutes ago, but the matter that is me and passed through me has existed since before time.

That you think an atom is the same as a person or a thought is an incorrect assumption on your part.
They are not momentary, they are infinite.
Again, attempting to simplify it:
A hydrogen atom in a glass of water has been like that forever. Immortal, unchanged. It was hydrogen five minutes ago, five million years ago, forever back in time.

There is no other way about it.
Unless you can show me a particular where it was not a hydrogen atom, where ALL of them were not.

You see, these observables of reality, demonstrating no need for a creation, quite trump any conjectured need for a creator, whether science has discover a creator or not.

Reality as we understand it, does not need creation.
Atoms are immortal and eternal.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 158 by historia]

According to the Council of Chalcedon, Jesus is a single person with two distinct natures -- one divine and the other human -- each of which retains its own unique properties.

So, while Christians can affirm that Jesus' human nature began to exist in time, they can equally affirm that the divine nature has always remained eternal and timeless.

This to me reads like a cheat. No I'm not accusing you of it, but it looks to me like a way of trying to escape from that 'entering time' problem I mentioned.
What exactly is a 'nature' in this context? You make it sound like Jesus can be neatly divided into two separate 'natures', as in he can be separated from one and still exist as his own entity.
Is Jesus supposed to be God or not? If yes, then God began to exist in time - you offer me no evidence, or indeed, no argument at all beyond bald assertion, that God is somehow not subject to beginning to exist.

This is actually mistaken. Craig proposes that God sans the universe was timeless, but that God entered into time at the creation of the universe. So today God is not in a timeless state.

Then you agree with me. God began to exist in time. He enters the realm of space-time, begins to exist in it. Christian Kalam is defeated right from the get go.
To give a very rough analogy (and probably stupid), God entering into time but somehow not beginning to exist in time is like saying one enters the US but is not subject to its laws at all, even up to and including laws against murder.
Another problem with what Craig proposes is that we humans have no evidence at all, literally none, for a thing that exists sans the universe. Indeed, the very notion of existing 'outside' the universe doesn't even make sense at all to me (what does it mean to be 'outside' space?) What does it mean for entity e to be able to 'exist' without space-time? We are aware of things that exist only within the confines of space-time. Craig can't offer up God as an example of a thing that exist sans space-time/universe, since God is the very thing he's trying to prove!
For this line of thought to work, he'd have to offer up examples of other things that we already know exist timelessly/sans universe, so that we can be sure that the notion of existing such is actually valid and sound. But Christian theism doesn't allow for that. God is the only entity that is allowed to be such, the only entity allowed to be in the set NBE (Not Begins to Exist)

for any entity e and time t, e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

Thanks. I must have missed that one. So let's run through it and see if any or all of those exclude God, shall we?
i) God exists in time, we've already agreed on that
ii) given that t=0, the Big Bang, the moment of creation if you want to call it that is indeed a moment in time (I see no reason to exclude it), so no, God isn't excluded from this one
iii) Given that Craig says God enters the world at the creation of the universe, then God has always existed in time, there is no moment or point where God could have both been in the actual world and yet be timeless (the actual world includes the dimension of time)
iv) Mentioning tensed fact seems to me to give the possibility that God does not in fact exist
"Tensed facts only exist relatively by definition: a tensed fact is relative to the temporal moment as experienced by the specific observer -- as the momentary experience changes, so may the accuracy of the tensed fact. Further, a tensed fact (such as "it is Wednesday") may or may not be "true" for a separate observer (such as someone on the other side of the world)."
http://www.godcontention.org/christian/ ... nsed-facts
I see relative there, so no...not objective? I see that a tensed fact is only relative as experienced by the specific observer. The link I gave there, as given by a Christian, defeats itself by saying that God doesn't experience tensed facts personally. I find that a big problem because I read what Craig has to say on the subject
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscie ... e-eternity
and he makes the same mistake - he asserts, as an axiom
"Since (2) is essential to theism "
(2) meaning God is omniscient
He offers no argument or evidence to prove that God actually knows everything and the problem of unknown unknowns shows that in my eyes no being can ever actually know everything or be shown to know everything.
Even though Craig and others say tensed facts can only be known by personal observers, they say God knows them too because...he magically knows all automatically...he just does.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Willum]

As I said, I don't agree that any atom, as it is right now, is the same as it was before, anymore than I agree any person right now is the same person he or she was five minutes ago. Atoms, as are all entities, are continually changing, can even be smashed.

Even if you could show that atoms always existed, that does not mean the universe always existed. The universe is more than just a bunch of atoms. The universe consists of specific structures, patterns of atoms, that have not existed forever. You and I are part of the universe, patterns that did not exist since day one.

Also, the big-bang theory does presuppose that while some form of matter was present in the beginning, there were no atoms per se.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 151 by For_The_Kingdom]

It is an argument that uses EVIDENCE to support its premise. You are playing semantics, bruh.

For Kalam to work when it comes to evidence, we would have to be able to show that there is indeed a thing that can exist sans cause. However, we don't have any evidence of that.
For example, let's take this philosophical argument. Not all people live in houses.
Without ever once touching evidence, as in data or facts, we can argue this all day long. However, suddenly one side of this debate is weakened, or loses outright, when someone shows this

Now suddenly, we're able to point to certain people who do not in fact live in houses. We have evidence, data, that some people live in caves. Indeed it seems the argument is settled, is it not?

Now, to get back to Kalam. Things that begin to exist have causes. Okay...do we have evidence of things that do not begin to exist? Is there data we can look at, evidence, to show it is indeed plausible for a thing to exist without having a cause?
When I ask the Christian theist, the only 'example' ('evidence') they can give is God, it is indeed the only thing they allow to be in the set NBE (Not Begins to Exist). But this is invalid because it is the very thing that the Christian theist is trying to prove!

[hoghead1]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

You raised some very good points, So I thought I would butt in and reply. Craig's argument, I think, is basically sound. However it gives a too-limited concept of God. Many assume that there is but one model of God available in Christendom. But that is not true. There are at a least two on the contemporary scene. There is classical theism, which Craig seems to hold to, and which is the traditional model of God as he or she or it is in his or her or its own nature. This came largely from Hellenic philosophy. Accordingly, God is void of body, parts passions, even compassion, wholly immutable, wholly independent of the universe, a statically complete perfection, an actus purus, by which is meant the actualization of all possible perfection, no potentiality in God. Hence, God is the Unmoved Mover.

However, since the 40's, there has been a neo-classical model of God. Accordingly, God is immutable in some aspects, and in that senses eternal (atemporal) without beginning, but definitely mutable(temporal) in others. The basic argument is that the traditional model offered a too-lopsided view of divine perfection. If it is a virtue to be immutable and say, "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. I'll not be deterred by others," it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others. If God cannot change, is wholly atemporal, then saint or sinner its all the same to God, who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can place any faith in such an indifferent God?

In neo-classical theism, God has an absolute and a relative nature. The absolute nature is what God always does, that God is always creative, loving, seeks to maximize beauty. But there is also a relative nature of God. This is God as a concrete, conscious personality. This is God as a social-relational being, arising out of "her" (to emphasize the passive, empathic receptive dimensions of God) relationships with others. The absolute nature of God always existed, is atemporal, but the relative depends upon the existence of the universe.

To clarify, yes, God would exist without a universe. But this would be God as incomplete, not wholly God, God as but purely unconscious, merely potential, without character, pattern, personality, just creative imagination seeking to self-actualize and become conscious. Creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness into self-consciousness and self-actualization. However, there never was a time when God was merely potential, purely unconscious. God's creative is eternal, never sat around idle. Hence, there has always been some sort of universe. Before this universe, that was another different one, and so an ad infinitum into the past and future also. So God is eternal and has no beginning, on one hand. Yet on the other, begins anew each moment, just as moment to moment we are new selves. It just depends on which aspects of God you are speaking of.

Again, I accept Craig's argument, except for the fact that he does not allow the concept of a beginning to be applied to God.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 164 by rikuoamero]

You might want to check out my Post #165. In addition, you might want to consider the following two points:
One is that if you consider that God is creative imagination seeking to self-actualize, then God can have no creator. As to create the creative imagination, some entity would have already had to have such an imagination.

Secondly, I view all actuality as the actualization of a prior-existing potential to become actual. So, before the universe, there must have existed potentials for the universe. But potentials do not exist in and of themselves, just in a vacuum. Potentials always exist in an actual entity. What exactly do I mean by that? Think of potentials like creative ideas. No ideas do not exist in a vacuum; they always exist in an imagination, in a mind. So before the universe, teh potentials for the universe must have existed in some mind, and that mind is God.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 165 by hoghead1]

Craig's argument, I think, is basically sound.

I disagree. I think it to be flawed on many levels, fundamentally so.

There is classical theism, which Craig seems to hold to, and which is the traditional model of God as he or she or it is in his or her or its own nature. This came largely from Hellenic philosophy. Accordingly, God is void of body, parts passions, even compassion, wholly immutable, wholly independent of the universe, a statically complete perfection, an actus purus, by which is meant the actualization of all possible perfection, no potentiality in God. Hence, God is the Unmoved Mover.

And hence, Craig's Kalam argument collapses.

If it is a virtue to be immutable and say, "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. I'll not be deterred by others," it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others. If God cannot change, is wholly atemporal, then saint or sinner its all the same to God, who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can place any faith in such an indifferent God?

This view of the Christian God that Craig believes in collapses under its own weight. What did Jesus do? Die to redeem us for our sins, says Craig or some other Christian. Okay...that gives us the reason. God wanted to redeem humanity, that's why he in the personage of Jesus died. Humans did something, necessitating this drastic solution.
Indeed, I doubt you could find a Christian who'd say that the reason Jesus died on the cross and resurrected has nothing at all to do with humans.

To clarify, yes, God would exist without a universe. But this would be God as incomplete, not wholly God, God as but purely unconscious, merely potential,

To echo what other posters have said, you are now using words in strange ways. I view something that is only potential as not actually existing for real. To echo what has been said to you before, you seem to be saying that God exists before God exists. You seem to be saying that God made no conscious decision to create the universe.

Creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness into self-consciousness and self-actualization.

I view unconsciousness as an entity that is unaware of its surroundings. This necessitates that there be surroundings for unconsciousness to even mean anything. Neo in the Matrix movies is unconscious at the start, he is unaware that he is trapped in a pod.
Suppose for a moment that in your hypothesis, God were conscious (for whatever reason, let's not get into that) as opposed to unconscious. Well...conscious of what? I am conscious now, as I type these words. I recognise the existence of the wider world, the existence of objects that are not myself. I am conscious of my bed, my desk, my TV, my computer, my keyboard, that bowl of cereal I have to wash.
Even if I ignore entirely the problematic statement of 'before the Big Bang' (before is a concept rooted in time, and doesn't make sense if we're talking about a realm without time), what does God being unconscious even mean? What is the difference in that state between God being conscious and God being unconscious? How can you, (not general you) make the distinction?

Before this universe, that was another different one, and so an ad infinitum into the past and future also

Then Kalam fails. Again. Kalam seeks to prove a first cause, it doesn't allow for infinite regression.

So God is eternal and has no beginning, on one hand.

I will borrow Craig's arguments to argue against this. Craig argues against an infinite regression for the universe because he holds that an infinite past doesn't make sense - one would have to traverse an infinite amount of time to get from moment to moment, and we'd never actually be able to get to the present moment.
If so, then the same argument applies to God. God could never traverse from deciding to creating the universe, to actually creating it. There'd be an infinite amount of steps in between the two.

One is that if you consider that God is creative imagination seeking to self-actualize, then God can have no creator.

I reject this because the only thing that I am aware of that can have imagination are minds, and minds are things that so far, we are aware of only existing within space-time. More to the point, minds require some sort of physical vessel - I am not aware of any evidence for a mind existing sans a brain of some sort (doesn't have to be an organic brain like with us humans).
You can't use God as proof/evidence that minds can exist without 'brains' since God is the thing you and Craig are trying to prove in the first place. This is the exact same problem I've pointed out before about the set NBE.

Secondly, I view all actuality as the actualization of a prior-existing potential to become actual.

I have no idea at all what this sentence means. Is this from Deepak Chopra's twitter feed?

So, before the universe,

I reject any concepts that rely on a 'before the universe' because in my eyes, 'before the universe' is a concept that doesn't make sense. I reject it just the same way I would reject somebody proposing a concept that requires and starts with 'married bachelor'. I don't know what 'married bachelor' means, it makes no sense to me, so the follow on concept I reject.

Potentials always exist in an actual entity.

Evidence please.

No ideas do not exist in a vacuum; they always exist in an imagination, in a mind. So before the universe, teh potentials for the universe must have existed in some mind, and that mind is God.

As I said before, the only minds that we are actually aware of existing are mind that are rooted in space-time, and require vessels of some sort. Do you have evidence for a mind that is all three of the following?
1) not rooted in space-time
2) doesn't require a vessel
3) is not God?
I need examples of this set (that I shall call Non-Space-Time-Minds or NSTM) that is NOT God before I can accept what you say about minds as even being plausible.

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 155 by Cephus]

As I pointed out in a previous post, as far as the Judeo-Christian goes, theology has provided a number of proofs for teh existence of God, from the ontological argument to the argument for meaningfulness. As yet, I have not heard your critique. When are you planning on providing it?

Also, while we are at it, when are you going to offer proof of causality and the verification principle?

Nope, they haven't provided even a single proof. They have provided claims. They have provided arguments. They have not provided proof. Proof requires objective evidence and you simply have none.

But do try again.

[Willum]

[Replying to hoghead1]

Well, my friend you disagree with reality. Because all the things you contest are true. Observably and demonstrably
Unlike any creator.
If they are different as you propose, you must show or demonstrate how.
But that is impossible, for they are not.

As for the Big Bang, no the atoms were there, they were simply in another state. Just as four Hydrogen fuse to become Helium, so to do atoms called bosons change to become hydrogen.

Your belief is in-line with pre-Newtonian physics.

[FarWanderer]

As for the Big Bang, no the atoms were there, they were simply in another state.

The same goes for peanut butter sandwiches, but you don't hear anyone going around calling them immortal.