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?

_____________

[Zzyzx]

.
Concerning icebergs: Glaciologists tell us that icebergs form as follows: moisture evaporated from water areas (typically oceans) is transported as water vapor by air movement over continental surfaces. There it falls as snow.

If conditions are appropriate not all snow is melted or ablated and some is left from year to year. As snow accumulates to some depth its lower portions recrystallize to form ice. Ice of sufficient thickness can flow outward as glacial movement from areas of maximum accumulation (or downhill or both).

If the movement reaches oceans or seas portions the seaward portions may break off and float away. The floating chunks of ice (sometimes the size of states) are known as icebergs.

These are normal atmospheric and geological processes. Where is 'a creator' involved?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 270 by Zzyzx]

Well, with the ice bergs, the immediate creators seem to be certain geological forces. So, yes, there are creators involved. With the birth of the universe, however, it's very different. What set off the big bang? Who or what struck the match? Was there anything there before the Big Bang? Scientists really can't see into the big bang, or back behind it, actually can't see it all, just the residual effects. So there is considerable metaphysical speculation involved. Craig wants to avoid an infinite regress, so he posits God, which is the logical thing to do if you want to avoid such a regress. Of course, if you are happy with such a regress, and a few might be, then you have Craig over a barrel. Or course, you might try another way to put Craig over a barrel, by arguing well, if everything we know has a beginning, a creator, then who created God, how does God escape having a beginning? That's where we process people might enter the picture and say that God does in fact have a beginning, is in a continual state of becoming. God, without a universe, would not be fully God, just an unconscious imagination seeking to self-actualize and become conscious. That imagination has to be eternal, as to create it, one world already have to have such an imagination. So it's just there. However, God never really was merely potential or purely unconscious, as there has always been some sort of created order or universe. Before this one, there was another, very different one, and so on, ad infinitum. I would be willing to accept such an infinite regress. Whether Craig would or not, I don't know. Craig seems committed to the classical notion that God is a wholly static, immutable entity.

At any rate, my specific point in my recent posts here is that the question of God is not a scientific question. If we speculate on god one way or the other, we have stepped out of science and into philosophy. I'm reminded here of Duncan McDougal, whose work is the basis form the movie "21 Grams." He was a physician, who, early in the last century, who set out to scientifically investigate whether there was an immortal soul. He tried to weigh six dying patients, getting their exact weight right before death and right after death. Ran into all sorts of complications, though e argued the data suggested the immortal soul weighed 21 grams. However, his work was quickly debunked. By the same token, just how would you scientifically prove, one way or the other whether there is a God? The age of the universe won't help. All that would prove is simply that God did not create the world in 4004 BC. The fact that evolution disproves the biblical Genesis account? I don't think so. All science has shown teh Theist is that God works through evolution, not that there is no God. The existence of miracles? But how do you scientifically prove or disprove a miracle, to start with? How, for example, would you scientifically go about proving or disproving the death and resurrection of Christ? My POV is that you really can't scientifically prove it, but you really scientifically can't disprove it either. It's just not a scientific question. And even if you are skeptical that miracles occur, all that would rove is that God does not work via miracles, as per Deism, not that there is no God.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 271 by hoghead1]

By the same token, just how would you scientifically prove, one way or the other whether there is a God? The age of the universe won't help. All that would prove is simply that God did not create the world in 4004 BC. The fact that evolution disproves the biblical Genesis account? I don't think so. All science has shown teh Theist is that God works through evolution, not that there is no God. The existence of miracles? But how do you scientifically prove or disprove a miracle, to start with? How, for example, would you scientifically go about proving or disproving the death and resurrection of Christ? My POV is that you really can't scientifically prove it, but you really scientifically can't disprove it either. It's just not a scientific question. And even if you are skeptical that miracles occur, all that would rove is that God does not work via miracles, as per Deism, not that there is no God.

Myself personally - I'm satisfied as long as the theist's claims are not borne out by evidence. So a Christian theist may argue that Jesus really did resurrect, he and I talk about it and at the end of the day, I come to the conclusion that what the Christian theist presents as evidence does not justify the extreme claim being made.
So I then don't believe that Jesus resurrected.
I recognise that we probably can't ever disprove once and for all God entirely, but I'm okay with various claims about a god or gods either being disproven or shown not to have sufficient evidence to support them.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 266 by hoghead1]

When Besso, a mathematician and good friend of Einstein died, Einstein wrote a famous letter to his family, saying, "...for us physicists believe that the separation between the past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." Other scientists who share a similar view are Feymann, in his Summary of Histories approach, and Hawking, in his book "Everything Forever." This is called the block theory of time and is very ancient. Accordingly, the past, present, and future al coexist at once, like frames of film on a film strip. It's just a question of what frame you are looking at. Regardless of what particular frame you are looking at, all the others exist at that time, though you see only one. Moving into the future, for example, is like walking toward a hotel. At first you don't see it, and when you do arrive, you realize it existed all the time.

Thank you for that.
If time is an illusion, so is causation.

And the KCA dies.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 271 by hoghead1]

With the birth of the universe, however, it's very different. What set off the big bang?

The same things that set off the seasons, nuclear reactions, indeed everything. Why are you assuming the BB was in any way a special event, not driven by forces we understand?

Who or what struck the match?

Do forest fires need a match to be struck? No. No one needed to set off the BB.

Was there anything there before the Big Bang?

Of course, there were what the universe was before the BB, atoms called bosons whose entire mass was that of the universe's.
Also, it is entirely possible that the BB did not create all matter. There is no good reason to assume that it did. There is a whole lot of stuff called "dark matter" out there, and it might very well be the corpse of a previous universe. That in turn means, that assuming some of the "Dark Matter" is mixed with regular matter, that the hydrogen in your glass of water could be many times older than the universe itself!
Think about it.

Scientists really can't see into the big bang, or back behind it, actually can't see it all, just the residual effects.

The truth is that no one can see five minutes ago, much less before the BB. So...
In fact we don't really see anything, only how light is reflected off of things.
But the BB was a nuclear explosion of bosons.

So there is considerable metaphysical speculation involved. Craig wants to avoid an infinite regress, so he posits God, which is the logical thing to do if you want to avoid such a regress.

Like I said, Craig is either a fool or charlatan. There is nothing wrong with infinite regress, I mean you have no trouble with the four seasons, do you? Many things are periodic, but there is no paradox if you understand the situation. The universe being a "closed" universe, is a very reasonable assumption. It is after all open, or closed. If open what if our universe rests on the corpse of a prior, if closed, there is nothing wrong with it cycling from BB, to expansion, to collapse and BB again.

Of course, if you are happy with such a regress, and a few might be, then you have Craig over a barrel.

I don't put idiots over a barrel, idiots like WCL, I ignore, and try to arrest the damage they cause.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 272 by rikuoamero]

OK, but my point is that there is no way scientifically to prove or disprove the resurrection. it is not a question for science.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 273 by Blastcat]

Yes, true, and so does science, the whole nine yards goes down the drain.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 274 by Willum]

All the forces we understand came after the big bang, so they obviously were not in play to cause it. As yet, science has no idea what caused it.

The universe is not jut some big bunch of matter flying around in all directions, the universe is a highly intricate, complex structure, more like an organism than anything else. So, question: How did this order come out of an explosion? How would passive, inert, dead matter manage to produce such a universe? Laws of nature? Well, where did the laws come from? All our experience tells us laws require a law maker. Where there is a watch, there is a watchmaker.

Despite what you say, most people find an infinite regress of causes to be unsatisfying. Well, what set off the big bang? Well, such-and-such did. Well, where did that such-and-such come from? Well, I think it came from the other such-and-such. On and on, it goes, with nobody being able to explain anything because the basic cause of it all can't be specified. Now, maybe you are satisfied with this, but many aren't.

Calling Craig names, a charlatan, etc., really doesn't help the discussion and actually detracts from it. Name-calling isn't debate, it's just muck racking. Craig is a solid scholar and does have valid points. The argument here is over which side is more rational, not which side is rational and which side irrational.

[Willum]

[Replying to hoghead1]

All the forces we understand came after the big bang, so they obviously were not in play to cause it. As yet, science has no idea what caused it.

Although that is true, the reason, say, there was no electromagnetic force, is because at their densest state, bosons are uncharged. Not charge, no electro-magnetic force. There was gravity.

But once charges formed, forces formed.
So,true, but non-sequitur.

How did this order come out of an explosion?

Well, let's run through it. Hydrogen emerges from bosons. It coalesces via gravity to form stars. Stars form heavier elements. Stars reform creating gravity gradients and centrifugal force cause denser objects to sort out at distances according to mass. They continue to gather and form planets...

Well, where did the laws come from? All our experience tells us laws require a law maker.

Well, before man there were no laws, did our ability to perceive and create laws, create laws? Of course not. Laws are human approximations and short-cuts describing nature. Laws require a maker, but there are no "laws" in nature, just reality that exists whether it is described (by a law) or not.

Despite what you say, most people find an infinite regress of causes to be unsatisfying. Well, what set off the big bang? Well, such-and-such did. Well, where did that such-and-such come from? Well, I think it came from the other such-and-such.

I'll repeat, nuclear forces set off the BB. The nuclear forces are intrinsic to bosons. The bosons are matter, and matter is neither created or destroyed, but immortal. Observably and theoretically more observably than any creator. Any regress is perfectly satisfying. Like the Earth going around the Sun creating seasons. It's only unsatisfying when you say; "Well then who created a theoretical God?"
Matter 1.
Creator 0.

Calling Craig names, a charlatan, etc., really doesn't help the discussion and actually detracts from it. Name-calling isn't debate, it's just muck racking. Craig is a solid scholar and does have valid points. The argument here is over which side is more rational, not which side is rational and which side irrational.

Hopefully, by the end of this topic you will recognize WCL as a fool or a charlatan.

[Replying to post 272 by rikuoamero]

OK, but my point is that there is no way scientifically to prove or disprove the resurrection. it is not a question for science.

I don't think even with omnipotence of any but the most literary description, that resurrection is possible. You'd need power to readjust atoms, and that would probably disrupt your other atoms... try it:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=31263

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 277 by hoghead1]

Would it be most intellectually honest to acknowledge that humans presently do not know how the universe came into existence – but have many unconfirmed guesses / theories / proposals / speculations?

Filling in the unknown with supernatural forces / creatures / entities may be appealing to some but that is not knowledge -- only speculation and perhaps wishful thinking. That same manner of speculation previously attributed storms, droughts, and floods to supernatural causes -- until atmospheric processes became understood enough to attribute them to real world cause-and-effect relationships (and the old beliefs withered away eventually).

Theoretical astrophysics clearly identifies its proposals about origin of the universe as . . . theoretical . . . and presents scientific evidence upon which its proposals (guesses) are based -- with the proviso that revisions are expected as new information becomes available.

Does theology present its position regarding origin of the universe as theoretical / speculative or does it claim TRUTH? Does it present evidence other than testimonials and stories (ancient or modern)? Does it seek improvement of its theories / proposals, or does it insist on adherence to ancient beliefs – and maintain that it is in possession of TRUTH?

If Theists openly acknowledged that what they say about supernatural entities and events is speculation / opinion / personal preference and belief, I would have no objection. Perhaps some of the newer versions of Christianity are moving in those directions?

Notice that I do not promote or support any theory of origin of the universe or beginning of life -- simply because I consider those to be speculation at this point.