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 Blastcat]

I don't think you quite grasped my point. Yes, if causality fails, Kalam would also fail. However, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was that science rests on assumptions that it is impossible to scientifically verify. Causality is one major example here. Hence, it must be recognized that there are pathways to truth other than science, or the jig is up, as they say, on science.

Some people do contrast religion with science, I realize that. My point is that this tension is artificial. There are differences, yes; but that needs not be that the two are at war with one another. If both sides are goi9ng to work as partners, and they should, it needs be recognized that there are common elements between themselves, that both, at each at their best, rely on a synthesis of faith and reason.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 211 by hoghead1]

My point was that science rests on assumptions that it is impossible to scientifically verify. Causality is one major example here.

Can you expound on this a little? Surely causality is rather trivial to demonstrate, such as a door only opening after you turn the key in the lock. If A, then B. Should A not happen, then B is impossible. A has to occur first in the sequence of events, otherwise B cannot happen.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 211 by hoghead1]


[center]Both sides now
Part Two: Let's pretend that religion can be of use to science.[/center]

I don't think you quite grasped my point. Yes, if causality fails, Kalam would also fail. However, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was that science rests on assumptions that it is impossible to scientifically verify.

Yep, I think I got that.
I not sure what I'm not grasping.

You seem to be repeating yourself.

You say that science "rests" on ( as in starts off with ) suppositions.
That's a clever way to say that science has observed regularities that they can't yet explain. And then they use these observations to create hypotheses and theories.

But no matter WHAT "knowledge" is being used in science, it is ALWAYS open to being revised by NEW observations, by new "knowledge". Religion's basic assumptions are WAY more resistant to change, and that's why we have so much intellectual stagnation in religion. The mysteries of religions remain mysterious and that, after thousands of years of "research" by other pathways than science.

Science looks forward toward the acquisition of NEW knowledge and methods, and religion looks backward toward the preservation of OLD knowledge and methods.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that formal systems cannot be used to verify themselves. So, maybe logic can't be used to verify logic, and maybe math can't be used to verify math, and maybe science can't be used to verify science, and maybe religion can't be used to verify religion. I don't know, I'm not an expert in the field.

But it makes sense.
I think one of the problems that Gödel points out is infinite recursion.
I don't see how religious thinking has solved that tricky problem.

I also don't see right now why you would want to mention that problem in regards to the first premise of the KCA. Since Gödel's incompleteness dilemma is a problem for HUMANS, its the same for any pathway to "truth", religious in nature or not.

Could you clarify the connection you are trying to make?

Causality is one major example here. Hence, it must be recognized that there are pathways to truth other than science, or the jig is up, as they say, on science.

"Pathways to "truth" other than science."

You jump from not being able not being able to know absolutely everything by way of science, such as the truth of "science" itself, or something like that, to... there must be other pathways to "the truth".

If we were to use those "other pathways", would we be able to verify the "truth" of science? Would we be further ahead? Where do these different pathways lead to?
Haven't people used these different pathways for generations?

What "truth" have we obtained by using these pathways?

Are you insinuating that one such "pathway" is religion?
What kind of truth are you talking about.. religious truths, or some other kind of "truth"?

Some people do contrast religion with science, I realize that.

Contrast?
Did you mean "equate"?
_____________

1. Science and religion aren't the same things.
2. Some people point out the many differences.
3. Some people point out the few similarities.
4. Science and religion are still not the same things, even though they might have certain similarities.
5. If we are concerned about nature, then we use scientific methods.
6. If we are concerned about gods, we can use non-scientific methods.
7. Whenever religious claims can be tested by science, as in miracle claims, for example, they fail. Prayer claims? .. fail.
8. Therefore, when it comes to empirical claims, religion fails the tests. And the ONLY way to test empirical claims is by science.
_____________

My point is that this tension is artificial. There are differences, yes; but that needs not be that the two are at war with one another.

What war are you talking about?
Science doesn't deal with religion.

Maybe some religious people are at war with science, for example, the creationists seem to be at war with the science of evolution.

If both sides are goi9ng to work as partners, and they should, it needs be recognized that there are common elements between themselves, that both, at each at their best, rely on a synthesis of faith and reason.

Why should science become partners with religion?
What would science gain?

Would it help if scientific papers always started off with a prayer to beloved Allah?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 202 by hoghead1]

No, I dopn't know if the BBT explains that or not. That's out of my field. And I am not sure where you are going with all this. Could you be a bit more specific?

Yep, discussing theoretical cosmology is WAY out of my comfort zone. That's why I want to tread very carefully along those lines. It's harder for me to tease opinions from facts with these complicated science topics.

You invoked Nucleosynthesis in order to show that "atoms begin to exist", and I invoked "quark-gluon plasma" to show that something had to begin to exist before causing the atoms to begin to exist.

I think it would be WAY clearer and succinct to just simply say "quark-gluon plasma causes nucleosynthesis", but Craig wants us to somehow use the word "begin" in that sentence. I am not sure that the word is so very USEFUL.

I get tripped up just trying to phrase causation with the word "begin". To me, saying "begin to exist" is a very klunky way of saying "caused" by something.

Saying that anything that has been caused by something has been caused by something doesn't sound QUITE so clever, though. And whatever else I can say about Craig, I consider him clever.

I am not aware that anyone knows what might have been needed to begin to exist in order to act as an efficient cause for the initial quark-gluon plasma that caused the initial atoms. And what might have been the efficient cause of THAT efficient cause, and so on. As far as I can tell, nobody knows.

Craig wants us to believe that a final efficient cause is called "God" in order to protect us from the demon that is "infinite regress". That's the two headed monster here. It's either a loving caring god or INFINITE REGRESS... woo.. When I write it in red like that, it looks a lot scarier.

We are discussing if his argument has any merit. I'm stuck on premise one of the argument. I'm having a lot of trouble getting past it right now. And if I cant get past the very first premise, that's about it for the KCA as far as I'm concerned.

In any case, what I am trying to say is that when you said that atoms begin to exist, it's like everything else. What does it MEAN to say that things begin to exist?

I think that the word "begins" in the premise only adds confusion. It should be ditched as unhelpful. Do we say that things "begin to be red".. no. We say that things are red. Do we say that "things begin to be caused"? No, we say that things are caused. Craig is clearly using language weirdly.

To me, Craig's use of "begins" is an sly attempt to obfuscate, or to confuse. I think someone really has to defend why on EARTH he would have used that peculiar phrasing.

To me, that word choice has always been a red flag. It might be clever, but maybe it's too clever, by far.

Hence, the thread.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 212 by rikuoamero]

No, causality is not something easy or trivial to demonstrate. A good read on the subject is to be found in the writings of David Hume, for example. Basically, the problem is that science assumes all knowledge comes through the senses. The verification principle states that the only meaningful statements are statements that can be verified by direct, sensory observation. Now, the problem is that we have no sensory experience of causality. We simply see one event following another, and that's it. We infer or speculate that the first event caused the second, but we have no sensory experience of any power in the first event to make the second occur. Correlation does not prove causality.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 214 by Blastcat]

I'm not quite sure I follow your problem here. When Craig talks about things having a beginning, he is simply saying that you and I, for example, did not always exist, so our existence began at a certain point in time. That red object you may be referring to over there didn't always exist, it came on the scene, into existence, at a certain point in time. This is common sense, a no-brainer, no?

If you are happy with an infinite regress of causal explanations, then Craig is definitely not your man. But many find such a regress undesirable. God is the logical alternative to avoid such a regress. What else would do so?

[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.

But, of course, the Council of Chalcedon affirmed this doctrine 1,500 years before you offered your objection -- and, indeed, centuries before the kalam argument was formulated. So, whatever we make of it, it's clearly not purpose-built to evade the question.

What exactly is a 'nature' in this context?

The Greek term employed by the Chalcedonean Creed is physis, translated into Latin as natura. This dictionary definition of "nature" seems as good as any, I suppose: "The basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it."

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.

Well, yeah, to a large degree that is true. Clearly, the Logos existed apart from any human nature prior to the Incarnation. And, according to orthodox theology, Jesus not only has two separate natures but also two separate wills.

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.

The "bald assertion" I'm making is that your question -- and therefore also your conclusion -- is an oversimplification.

Orthodox Christianity maintains that, in the Incarnation, the second person of the Trinity took to himself a human nature, while not changing the divine nature.

Unless you address your argument in those terms, you're criticism here, if it has any merit, simply doesn't apply to orthodox Christianity.

[Willum]

[Replying to hoghead1]

HH,
I admire your knowledge of the great philosophers.
But I think I must call your attention to the idea that they could only do what they could with what they had.

Hume was 18th century.
What might he have done with 1930's natural sciences? He would have excelled to even more marvelous heights.
But what would they be? They wouldn't be 1700's schools of thought.
Indeed, the originators of this argument - "You can't get something from nothing," did not intend it as a philosophical argument. They meant it literally, and continuously, and more appropriately, something always begets something.
Respectfully,

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 217 by historia]

However, the kalam argument can be traced back to Aristotle and his concept of the Unmoved Mover.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 218 by Willum]

I'm not sure here which of my posts you are responding to. If you are referring to my comments on causality, they hold today as well. Hume is certainly not out of date on that point.