The Kalam Cosmological Argument William Lane Craig

[William]

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.

Ghazali formulates his argument very simply: “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [1]

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

(If so/if not, why so/not?)

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #60]

Do you agree that when we mention "Science" we are speaking about a process?

Not just that. The scientific method is a process, but science is also a body of knowledge eatablished through that process.

Is there any necessary reason that we have to separate the body of knowledge from the process?

I'm saying that we can justifiably accept that body of knowledge -because it consists of facts established through the process.

So is there some way of saying that without separating the two into distinct categories?

Please verify you accept treating established science as justifiable (without circularity).If you do, I'll follow up with the next step in my reasoning.

I think the process of science and the body of evidence produced are subject to necessary circulation. Rinse and repeat. Peer review. Ironing out the wrinkles. THe process of science is consistently in that circular-type motion.

The process of science is naturally circular. The body of the work is subject to change.

Perhaps you can start of with an example of a body of scientific work which can be agree on, fits into the (IF) category in order to clarify.

Do you agree with the following.
Irrefutable Fact (IF)
Justified Fact (JF)
Unjustified Fact. (UF)

If so, are you saying that the process of science is an (IF) while the body of work produce through the process is (JF)?

If so, I can presently accept that and agree, until it becomes apparent that is not the case.

[fredonly]

Is there any necessary reason that we have to separate the body of knowledge from the process?
...

So is there some way of saying that without separating the two into distinct categories?

The body of knowledge is a logical consequence of the methodology. We can keep that in mind, but that doesn't prevent us from treating that body of knowledge as established facts. If you disagree, then explain why.

I think the process of science and the body of evidence produced are subject to necessary circulation. Rinse and repeat. Peer review. Ironing out the wrinkles. THe process of science is consistently in that circular-type motion.

I stated that I was specifically referring to established theories - which have already been through the review process, has made predictions that have been verified, have not been falsified, and are now generally accepted. If you believe accepted theories are the product of circular reasoning, please give me an example. Here's the general form of circular reasoning:

X is true because of Y, and Y is true because of X.

Provide an actual example of circular reasoning in established scientific theories.

[The Tanager]

You're right that the KCA doesn't assume omniscience, but it also doesn't entail a "beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe". The argument actually only shows that a first cause (or initial state) is likely. You're mistaking Craig's surrounding rhetoric for for the argument itself.

Is this a semantic (not meant pejoratively) point that you only consider the KCA to have three premises? Or that Craig’s fourth and fifth premise in his treatment aren’t sound? Or something else?

That's not really a valid conclusion, because it depends on an equivocation on the term "begin to exist". Our basis for the assumption that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is our observation within the universe, observations that show that an object begins to exist only after a temporally prior state of affairs in which it did not exist. Craig tries to patch this with by defining "begins to exist" in a way that exempts God, but it's a special pleading.

How does Craig define “begins to exist” in a way that exempts God? Either something “begins to exist” or it doesn’t (i.e., is eternal). And it’s not observation, but logic that tells us that something that begins to exist is preceded by a past state where it did not exist.

I am persuaded that time is finite to the past, but this only suggests an initial state. An initial state of "God sans universe" is logically possible, but so is "initial state of material reality". An initial state could not have been caused to exist because that would entail a cause temporally preceding it - which is logically impossible.

Yes, the initial state couldn’t have a cause. But that initial state must have certain characteristics (if Craig’s reasoning is sound) which rules out material reality being that initial state.

[fredonly]

Is this a semantic (not meant pejoratively) point that you only consider the KCA to have three premises? Or that Craig’s fourth and fifth premise in his treatment aren’t sound? Or something else?

Last I checked, Craig's KCA had 2 premises and a conclusion:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

See: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/ ... bby-conway

Craig then makes a case for the cause being God through a conceptual analysis, wherein he makes debatable metaphysical assumptions.

How does Craig define “begins to exist” in a way that exempts God?

He defines "begins to exist" like this:
x begins to exist ≡ x exists at t; there is no time immediately prior to t at which x exists; and the actual world contains no state of affairs involving x's timeless existence.
--https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... -rejoinder

Either something “begins to exist” or it doesn’t (i.e., is eternal). And it’s not observation, but logic that tells us that something that begins to exist is preceded by a past state where it did not exist.

Logic? If you believe that, then provide the logic.

But I'll clarify. Craig refers to the claim as "intuition". My point is that this intuition is grounded in our collective experience. The only alternative would be to claim it's a properly basic belief, but then it would still be an innate belief that was caused by the way the universe is. In the universe, every case in which something has begun to exist was temporally preceded by a state of affairs at which it did not exist.

Yes, the initial state couldn’t have a cause. But that initial state must have certain characteristics (if Craig’s reasoning is sound) which rules out material reality being that initial state.

His reasoning is not sound, and this can be demonstrated by describing a hypothetical initial state:

Imagine a state of affairs consisting of a quantum system. Suppose the quantum system as a whole does not experience time (conforming with a time-independent Schroedinger equation), but time emerges internally through quantum entanglements.

This may sound far-fetched, but it's consistent with a mechanism proposed by theoretcal physicists (Page & Wooters) and has some experimental support (see: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00707)

But even setting aside a quantum system, just consider an initial state of material reality as a classical system. It's logically impossible for it to be caused, because there is no temporally prior state in which it didn't exist. Craig has falsely referred to this as "popping into existence" which is non-sequitur. The only way it could be caused would be if a being exists outside material reality, but if you assume that, you've made the argument circular.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #62]

Do you agree with the following.
Irrefutable Fact (IF)
Justified Fact (JF)
Unjustified Fact. (UF)

If so, are you saying that the process of science is an (IF) while the body of work produce through the process is (JF)?

If so, I can presently accept that and agree, until it becomes apparent that is not the case.

From what you are saying, I would say that the "body of knowledge as established facts" is (JF)
and so too are "established theories - which have already been through the review process, has made predictions that have been verified, have not been falsified, and are now generally accepted.", some of which may also be (IF).
If you agree with that, you can proceed with what it is you want to convey re naturalism.

[fredonly]

[Replying to William in post #65]

You're ignoring my request: either demonstrate circular reasoning in science, with an example, or admit the process isn't circular. It would be pointless to continue if we don't agree on this.

[William]

From what you are saying, I would say that the "body of knowledge as established facts" is (JF)
and so too are "established theories - which have already been through the review process, has made predictions that have been verified, have not been falsified, and are now generally accepted.", some of which may also be (IF).
If you agree with that, you can proceed with what it is you want to convey re naturalism.

[Replying to William in post #65]

You're ignoring my request: either demonstrate circular reasoning in science, with an example, or admit the process isn't circular. It would be pointless to continue if we don't agree on this.

I thought you were prepared to show how naturalism isn't circular, if I agreed to the definition of scientific process?

As far as I am aware, I made no comment that there is circular reasoning in the scientific process other than the standard necessary one's to do with working things out to that point where these become established facts.

The established facts are the evidence which I observed can be/are interpreted differently from our positions (mindedness and naturalism) and which you claimed I was being circular in my reasoning.

I admitted that the process might appear to be that way, but also appeared to be that way for the naturalist position as well.

You disagreed that there was any circular reasoning involved re the naturalist position and - once we agreed on what constitutes scientific evidence, you would then show me why there is no actual circular reasoning involved with naturalism.

From what I can gather, your response seems to indicate that you think science as a process and naturalism are one and the same thing, whereas I do not see that as being the case

The evidence science shows us, does not tell us that there is or is not mindfulness involved in evolution, or even in the way the universe has been and continues to unfold.

Naturalism (at least from your arguments as a naturalist) doesn't discount the possibility but also doesn't see in the evidence the scientific process provides any sign of this being the case, and you further declared that the reason I see mindfulness is because I am applying circular reasoning which I countered with that if this was the case, then I could say the same about why the naturalist folk don't see the mindfulness.

All in all, what the whole interaction has revealed is that our opinions about why we see or do not see mindfulness involved, are not relevant, and I am content to withdraw my accusation of circular reasoning, if you are also willing to do the same.

If you are not, then I don't see how we can continue because it is no more than a distraction from getting into the details re what evidence from both positions can be considered (IF), what evidence can can be considered (JF) and what evidence can be considered (UF), which is where I would like to be in this conversation and why I offered an example from mindedness of an (IF) for possible consideration and further discussion.

That is where I want to go to from here. Where do you want to go to from here?

[fredonly]

I thought you were prepared to show how naturalism isn't circular, if I agreed to the definition of scientific process?

No. I was slowly walking you through the reasoning behind my qualified embrace of naturalism. This could either lead to you agreeing that no circular reasoning is involved, or....

...or it would at least show where you believe there is circulariy. We evidently reached that point, since you believe scientific knowledge is rooted in circular reasoning. You can't demonstrate it - I twice asked for an example- but you think it is. You just gave me a vague basis for thinking it's circular, not a rational basis.

I can't reason with someone who clings to irrational beliefs. So I'm wasting my time.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #68]

You think it is irrational for someone to think mindfulness is part of the process and a waste of your time trying to reason with someone who thinks that it is a rational approach to take re the same evidence.

You have provided nothing to show that the undirected evolution presumption isn't a circular one.

[fredonly]

You think it is irrational for someone to think mindfulness is part of the process ...

What I've shown is that your belief that science is the product of circular reasoning is irrational. You don't seem to want to confront that, so it's a waste of my time to continue.

If you respond again, without either admitting you were wrong, or (finally) giving me an example of circularity in science, I won't again respond to you in this thread.