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?

_____________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 180 by Willum]




[center]Energy vs. Atom
Part One[/center]

What I am saying is that P1 and P2 are non-sequitur in the light that matter and energy are conserved.

All these things you are mentioning are made up of atoms. You can move them around, and re-arrange them, but you can't create or destroy them.

I think that we should be careful about the language that we use... I'm not sure if we should be discussing if ATOMS can be created or destroyed. That does get a bit murky, depending on our definition of "create" and "destroy".

The word "energy" would be a better word to use than "atom".

"The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... destroyed/

[Willum]

[Replying to Blastcat]

True, but it is not matter that is conserved.
It is not energy that is conserved.

It is matter and energy.

And the KCA is easily dismissed on this ground.
There is no discontinuity in matter/energy. Whatever was before the BB, for example, was still there after, just in a different state.

No creation, only transformation.
You only need ONE assumption the "Closed Universe." That the universe will ultimately collapse on itself.
Actually,being open just means we need to investigate other possibilities, it is not a show stopper.

One highly reasonable assumption, with good reasons to make it, vs. assumptions that need assumptions, that need further assumptions.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 192 by Willum]



[center]
BRKCA and other musings:
Part One[/center]

True, but it is not matter that is conserved.
It is not energy that is conserved.

It is matter and energy.

The second law of thermodynamics is about energy... Energy and matter aren't the same things. One might cause the other, but they aren't the same.

Or the law would be called something else... right?

If I bake a cake, the "matter" might not be persevered for ever, as it can change, and possibly must change over time. But the energy in a closed system doesn't go away.

That's the 2nd law.
Now.. what kind of evidence do you have that matter doesn't go away?

( not a rhetorical question, by the way ! )

There is no discontinuity in matter/energy. Whatever was before the BB, for example, was still there after, just in a different state.

Do we know that?
Aren't you guessing right now?

No creation, only transformation.

Yes, but that's in a closed system.
Do we know that the universe is a closed system?

You only need ONE assumption the "Closed Universe." That the universe will ultimately collapse on itself.

Ok, so we have to assume a closed universe to save the theory.
Must we save the theory?

Actually,being open just means we need to investigate other possibilities, it is not a show stopper.

I'm open to the suggestion that the universe might be open.

As a skeptic and an agnostic, I try to assume as little as possible.
I assume already too many things for my taste.

One highly reasonable assumption, with good reasons to make it, vs. assumptions that need assumptions, that need further assumptions.

Ah now that one....

I'm not sure that saying that one assumption is TRUER than another due to following Occam's razor follows. But I think I see what you mean. Craig seems to be trying to resolve one assumption of infinite regress about tensed causation with ... an assumed entity that itself doesn't have tensed causation.

Apparently, "God" is the only case of a non-tensed causation. It doesn't "begin" to exist. Why? Well, that's how they define "God". Perhaps the KCA does this:

_____________

Blastcat's Revised Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God ( BRKCA ):

• P1. Whatever has been caused in time, begins.
  P2. God hasn't been caused in time, and therefore, does not begin.
  P3. Things that begin have to have an efficient cause external to themselves.
  P4. We have to put a stop to efficient causes. It's been going on way too long.
  P5. When it comes to efficient causes, God is the bottom line.
  P6. We really need a bottom line,
  C. Therefore God has to exist.

_____________


Isn't "God" an attempt to stop an infinite regress?
Apparently, those are so INTOLERABLE !!

At least to Kraig and the Kalam Kabal.
Meh, me, I'm open about that.. doesn't seem to disturb my sleep much anymore.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 171 by historia]

[
Second, the kalam argument is about efficient rather than material causes.

I'm interested in this idea.. causation is a bit of a mystery to me.

In the creation of a cake, the efficient cause is the baker, and the material cause is the ingredients.

Kalam, clarified:

P1) Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause.
P2) The universe began to exist.
C) Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause.

In effect, the Kalam argument claims that the baker (God) somehow creates cakes without any ingredients. Poof.

However, there isn't a shred of evidence that causality might ever work this way. Here's a counter argument:

P1) Everything that has an efficient cause has a material cause.
P2) The universe does not have a material cause.
C) Therefore, the universe does not have an efficient cause.

And I consider this KCA intellectual "noise" in the sense that it obfuscates way more than it clarifies. I'd much rather have more "signal" than noise.

I consider Craig's moral argument worse.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The argument is logically equivalent to:

P1) If objective moral values exist, God exists.
P2) Objective moral values exist.
C) Therefore, God exists.

I do not like Craig. He obfuscates.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 194 by FarWanderer]

Kalam, clarified:

P1) Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause.
P2) The universe began to exist.
C) Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause.

Ok.
I think I got it now.. thanks.
The Kalam is talking about efficient causes only. People in here seem to be in agreement about this.. I think. And it makes sense to me.. If "God" is the guy who "does it", then we are talking an efficient cause.

One word explained in the first premise.. two or three more to go.

In effect, the Kalam argument claims that the baker (God) somehow creates cakes without any ingredients. Poof.

Not ok.
I don't see where the Kalam forbids a material cause. Maybe Genesis says so, maybe some Christians say so, maybe Craig believes that.. and says so. But in the KCA, I don't see it. In the version that I am using ( presumably from Craig ) it's at least POSSIBLE that "God" is the divine baker.. has all of the necessary ingredients for the universe, and knows how to bake up a tasty universe out of them. After all, if "God" can be eternal, then maybe matter can be eternal, but the KCA doesn't say one way or another, as far as I can tell.

Am I missing something important?

However, there isn't a shred of evidence that causality might ever work this way. Here's a counter argument:

P1) Everything that has an efficient cause has a material cause.
P2) The universe does not have a material cause.
C) Therefore, the universe does not have an efficient cause.

Yikes...
You're like a mini-Craig, aren't cha?

Ok, YOUR first premise, sir or madam....

It seems to me that I might have the same reaction to Craig's KCA... as in... "OH YEAH? Who says so?" Or, perhaps more politely :"Have humans demonstrated that your P1 is true?"

But if your P1 is true.. yeah.. you got something there.
But I think it suffers from the same thing as Craig's first premise does.
Now you have to demonstrate that "everything" is how you say it is.

That's a tall order, don't you think?
How you gonna find out about everything?

Maybe you should bring it down a notch...

And I consider this KCA intellectual "noise" in the sense that it obfuscates way more than it clarifies. I'd much rather have more "signal" than noise.

I consider Craig's moral argument worse.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The argument is logically equivalent to:

P1) If objective moral values exist, God exists.
P2) Objective moral values exist.
C) Therefore, God exists.

I do not like Craig. He obfuscates.

Right, that double negative REALLY irritates me.
I don't THINK that Craig is sloppy.. He INTENDS to make our heads spin a little there.. NOT NOT ? ... gimme a break.

I have to agree with you, that's a stinker.

But maybe you mean that Craig obfuscates MORE than some other apologists.
I've not encountered ANY apologists who aren't experts at obfuscation. But they can't call apologetics "obfuscation", right out, because using THAT word to describe their work would not be obfuscated enough. If you are a liar, the FIRST lesson is "don't call yourself a liar, they will NOTICE that".

So, apologetics 101:

"Don't call it obfuscation, whatever you do !!"

And:

"Make sure to pretend that these arguments will convince any outsiders to the faith "


I don't see any of those signs on church walls anymore.
They finally noticed that some of us heathens were taking notes.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 193 by Blastcat]
Point of order.
Sorry, brother BC, invoking thermodynamics was an erroneous assertion on me made by someone now on 'ignore,' with a pattern of ascribing erroneous assertions to what I've said.

I did not invoke thermo, just conservation of matter and energy, I am not even claiming they are the same. Just conserved.

Open/closed, not really important, just important in demonstrating how idiotic the KCA is, with the right information. If you want to talk logic and assumptions all day, whatever. If you want to "get off your unicorn and get some proof," then look to reality.

Reality is right there, being otherwise ignored.

There is no discontinuity in matter/energy. Whatever was before the BB, for example, was still there after, just in a different state.

Do we know that?
Aren't you guessing right now?

Absolutely we know that. What other propositions are there?

V/R

What kind of evidence do I have that matter and energy are conserved?
Really, you want proof?
That is way outside of my scope on this site, I am afraid, and right into education. I don't come here to teach, but this should help.
Here's wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 192 by Willum]

True, but it is not matter that is conserved.
It is not energy that is conserved.

It is matter and energy.

The second law of thermodynamics is about energy... Energy and matter aren't the same things. One might cause the other, but they aren't the same.

E=mc^2 says mass and energy are the same thing. They are just in different states.

Also, you are getting your laws of thermodynamics confused.

First law: Total energy in a closed system stays constant over time.
Second law: Entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases over time.

When you split an atom, it loses mass and releases energy. If that lost mass wasn't itself considered to be energy before the split, then the universe's total energy would be increased by the split.

Which would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Or the law would be called something else... right?

Nope. It's legacy terminology. Before E=mc^2, scientists had already come up with the law of conservation of energy, and the law of conservation of mass, as independent laws. E=mc^2 informed us that they were in fact the same law, but the terminology since then hasn't been changed.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 194 by FarWanderer]

Kalam, clarified:

P1) Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause.
P2) The universe began to exist.
C) Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause.

Ok.
I think I got it now.. thanks.
The Kalam is talking about efficient causes only. People in here seem to be in agreement about this.. I think. And it makes sense to me.. If "God" is the guy who "does it", then we are talking an efficient cause.

One word explained in the first premise.. two or three more to go.

In effect, the Kalam argument claims that the baker (God) somehow creates cakes without any ingredients. Poof.

Not ok.
I don't see where the Kalam forbids a material cause. Maybe Genesis says so, maybe some Christians say so, maybe Craig believes that.. and says so. But in the KCA, I don't see it. In the version that I am using ( presumably from Craig ) it's at least POSSIBLE that "God" is the divine baker.. has all of the necessary ingredients for the universe, and knows how to bake up a tasty universe out of them. After all, if "God" can be eternal, then maybe matter can be eternal, but the KCA doesn't say one way or another, as far as I can tell.

Am I missing something important?

No, strictly speaking you are correct.

However, if there were some material cause from which God made the universe, we now have to ask what caused this new material cause. It defeats the whole purpose of the Kalam in the first place. The Kalam apologists would agree, as they believe God has to be the unique and final answer to all of causality.

Which is why I didn't bother to bring it up.

However, there isn't a shred of evidence that causality might ever work this way. Here's a counter argument:

P1) Everything that has an efficient cause has a material cause.
P2) The universe does not have a material cause.
C) Therefore, the universe does not have an efficient cause.

Yikes...
You're like a mini-Craig, aren't cha?

Yep. Love this stuff.

Ok, YOUR first premise, sir or madam....

It seems to me that I might have the same reaction to Craig's KCA... as in... "OH YEAH? Who says so?" Or, perhaps more politely :"Have humans demonstrated that your P1 is true?"

But if your P1 is true.. yeah.. you got something there.
But I think it suffers from the same thing as Craig's first premise does.
Now you have to demonstrate that "everything" is how you say it is.

That's a tall order, don't you think?
How you gonna find out about everything?

Maybe you should bring it down a notch...

Yes I emulated the KCA on purpose, to expose the problems in the KCA. The counter-argument is only meant to prove that the KCA is no good and not anything else.

If the KCA apologist attacks a problem in the counter-argument that also exists in the original KCA, they are also discrediting their own argument just the same. If they do that, the KCA is destroyed. And of course if they accept the counter-argument as true, then the KCA is destroyed.

The Kalam apologist has to find a problem with the counter-argument that doesn't exist in the original KCA. I wouldn't even know where to start.

But maybe you mean that Craig obfuscates MORE than some other apologists.
I've not encountered ANY apologists who aren't experts at obfuscation.

Many of them don't know better. But Craig is very smart. He knows better.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to FarWanderer]

Yes, things that are not 100% certain are matters of speculation, also concepts that cannot be directly observed.
Yes, causality is convenient, but is it really there or a "convenient fiction," as Hume says, of the mind. There are noncausal models of reality. But that is another story. I don't want to get way off track and into that here. My immediate point is that, as far as science goes, causality cannot be scientifically verified. I mention that to show that science does entail underlying philosophical speculations. Too often, people present a caricature of science as all hard facts, not appreciating the role speculation plays in science. On the other hand, too often, people present a caricature of theism as all idle speculation, not appreciating there is an empirical dimension to theology. Both sides use a combination of fact, or hard data, and also speculation.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 187 by Cephus]

All you seem to want to do is cast aspersion on the character of us theists, making rude, disrespectful remarks about us. That kind of inflammatory rhetoric has no place in a serious theological discussion. From such posts, I can surmise only that you are very angry with us theists and have decided to fight, rather than be reflective. All I case say is you have some sort of undisclosed anger issue with theists. Well, that's too bad and all, but that is your problem, not mind. I am not a mind reader. I don't know what your reasons are, whether they are good, bad, or indifferent. I don't know what, if any, theistic literature you are responding to. It is apparent, from some of your posts, that you have absolutely no familiarity with any of the work being done in neo-classical theism, which is a major dimension of contemporary theology, and that causes me to suspect that your information base on theism is limited and out of date. But beyond that, I can say no more. I'm not here as your instructor in an online course on theology. I shouldn't be asked to provide you with some theological argument. You are the one who has gone on the offensive, taken the lead. Its only fair to expect you already know this material cold and are ready, then, to state specific theistic arguments and your rational rebuttal.