Debunking Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Aquitasium]

Hello, I am new here, following a lead from William.
This OP's point is, Debunking W L Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument

Introduction
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a popular argument for the existence of God. It was formulated by philosopher William Lane Craig and is based on the idea that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The argument states that the universe began to exist, therefore it must have a cause, which is God.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument:

In the article;
Craig modified Ghazali's P1 and added P4 & P5 as:
1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
…………………………………………………………..
4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator


Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
There are several problems with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
First, the argument assumes that the universe had a beginning.
However, this is not a necessary conclusion of modern cosmology.
The Big Bang theory, for example, does not say that the universe began from nothing, but rather that it began from a very hot, dense state.
Second, the argument equivocates on the term "cause."
The argument assumes that the cause of the universe must be a personal being with free will.
However, there is no reason to believe that this is the case.
The cause of the universe could simply be a natural law or process.
Third, the argument is circular. It assumes that the universe needs a cause, but then defines the cause as God. This is simply begging the question.

Kant's Critique of the Cosmological Argument
Immanuel Kant, a famous philosopher, also criticized the Cosmological Argument.
Kant argued that the argument is based on the assumption that the universe is a contingent being.
A contingent being is something that could not have existed.
Kant argued that we cannot know whether the universe is contingent or not.
Therefore, we cannot use the Cosmological Argument to prove the existence of God.

Conclusion
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a flawed argument that does not provide convincing evidence for the existence of God.
The argument is based on false assumptions, equivocates on key terms, and is circular.
Additionally, Kant's critique of the argument shows that it is based on an unknowable assumption.

Discuss??
Views??

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #20]

But the ‘universe’ includes all space and all time, so transcending the space and time of this “bubble” isn’t enough.

The premises of the kalam original does not say anything about "space and time" but only and directly refers to the universe having a beginning (and thus the space and time of the universe under question, as per the diagrams I presented.)

The cause must transcend all space and all time because the ‘universe’ refers to all space and time.

Where did this presumption derive? Is it from the "extended kalam"?

If your IFX is spatial, it does not satisfy this premise.

The IFX is infinite and eternal in that no thing exists outside of it (there is no outside of it) and eternal (has always existed.)

It must have more power than anything we’ve ever encountered since it created all of spacetime reality.

No. It only requires to have enough power to have accomplished the creation of this universe. There is no requirement to assume it has to have any more power than that.

[The Tanager]

But the ‘universe’ includes all space and all time, so transcending the space and time of this “bubble” isn’t enough.

The premises of the kalam original does not say anything about "space and time" but only and directly refers to the universe having a beginning (and thus the space and time of the universe under question, as per the diagrams I presented.)

The cause must transcend all space and all time because the ‘universe’ refers to all space and time.

Where did this presumption derive? Is it from the "extended kalam"?

No, it’s how Craig defines the universe from the very beginning. I know changing his definition to just this bubble universe is easier for your case, but we are discussing Craig’s KCA.

If your IFX is spatial, it does not satisfy this premise.

The IFX is infinite and eternal in that no thing exists outside of it (there is no outside of it) and eternal (has always existed.)

It has infinite spatial dimensions, correct? Having nothing outside of it doesn’t mean it isn’t spatial. Thus, as the cause of all space-time, the cause can’t be spatial and your IFX doesn’t satisfy premise 4.

[William]

Where did this presumption derive? Is it from the "extended kalam"?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #22]

No, it’s how Craig defines the universe from the very beginning.

That is the "extended kalam" is it not? The original kalam had only the 3 premises. Craig defines the universe the way he does for what reason related to the original? There seems no practical point in Craig having done this other than to attempt to superimpose his beliefs about the nature of the cause onto the original kalam.

I know changing his definition to just this bubble universe is easier for your case, but we are discussing Craig’s KCA.

Oh I see. It is simply a case of "your definition - while easier, has nothing to do with Craigs".

[The Tanager]

No, it’s how Craig defines the universe from the very beginning.

That is the "extended kalam" is it not? The original kalam had only the 3 premises. Craig defines the universe the way he does for what reason related to the original? There seems no practical point in Craig having done this other than to attempt to superimpose his beliefs about the nature of the cause onto the original kalam.

I don't call Craig's version the "extended" one and al-Ghazali's the original. As far as I can remember (and Craig says the same) al-Ghazali argues more than just the first 3 premises in his work, at least arguing for the Cause being personal, but I think more than that. I can't remember if he argues for all the characteristics I mentioned. Regardless of that, the title of the thread says debunking Craig's KCA.

As to that, Craig defines the universe by appealing to accepted scientific notions, not to superimpose any religious beliefs. If you have a problem with this definition, then it is a problem with accepted science, not Craig's religious beliefs and requires you to show the definition is faulty instead of pop-psychologizing about Craig's supposed motives. Stick with the argument and the definitions and the reasons.

I know changing his definition to just this bubble universe is easier for your case, but we are discussing Craig’s KCA.

Oh I see. It is simply a case of "your definition - while easier, has nothing to do with Craigs".

Not only is it not Craig's, but it's a worse definition to use. Address the KCA in its strongest form, which requires using this definition of 'universe' or showing how that definition is faulty for scientific or logical reasons.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #24]

Not only is it not Craig's, but it's a worse definition to use.

No it isn't. At least you have shown no reason other than "it is not Craigs' definition" which is fine, but that is not the same things as "Craigs' is a better definition".

Furthermore, what is it the "science is saying" that Craigs' definition is better? Is science saying that the universe came from nothing?

I don't think that science is saying that at all. Rather it is saying that it presently does not know, but the natural alternative I presented, is aligned with all that we do so far understand about the universe and the scientific position is one that will posit the universe came from something rather than from nothing, and therefore the cause will not be thought of as some non-physical source, no matter how much supernaturalists want it to be, or how popular it is in terms of large numbers of supernaturalists who desperately support such concepts.

Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument support the traditional Christian idea of "God"?

[The Tanager]

No it isn't. At least you have shown no reason other than "it is not Craigs' definition" which is fine, but that is not the same things as "Craigs' is a better definition".

Furthermore, what is it the "science is saying" that Craigs' definition is better? Is science saying that the universe came from nothing?

I don't think that science is saying that at all. Rather it is saying that it presently does not know, but the natural alternative I presented, is aligned with all that we do so far understand about the universe and the scientific position is one that will posit the universe came from something rather than from nothing, and therefore the cause will not be thought of as some non-physical source, no matter how much supernaturalists want it to be, or how popular it is in terms of large numbers of supernaturalists who desperately support such concepts.

Where the ‘universe’ came from is not its definition; we aren’t talking about that. We are talking about whether the universe should be defined as “all spatio-temporal matter/energy” or “the state of the spatio-temporal matter/energy in our local universe since the Big Bang”. The scientific uncertainty you seem to be pointing to is exactly why Craig’s definition is better than yours. Your definition covers only one piece of physical reality (which is okay if that is all there is, but there is scientific uncertainty there), while Craig’s definition covers physical reality if that one piece is all there is, but also covers more than that, if there is more than that. That’s why his definition is better.

[William]

No it isn't. At least you have shown no reason other than "it is not Craigs' definition" which is fine, but that is not the same things as "Craigs' is a better definition".

Furthermore, what is it the "science is saying" that Craigs' definition is better? Is science saying that the universe came from nothing?

I don't think that science is saying that at all. Rather it is saying that it presently does not know, but the natural alternative I presented, is aligned with all that we do so far understand about the universe and the scientific position is one that will posit the universe came from something rather than from nothing, and therefore the cause will not be thought of as some non-physical source, no matter how much supernaturalists want it to be, or how popular it is in terms of large numbers of supernaturalists who desperately support such concepts.

Where the ‘universe’ came from is not its definition; we aren’t talking about that. We are talking about whether the universe should be defined as “all spatio-temporal matter/energy” or “the state of the spatio-temporal matter/energy in our local universe since the Big Bang”. The scientific uncertainty you seem to be pointing to is exactly why Craig’s definition is better than yours. Your definition covers only one piece of physical reality (which is okay if that is all there is, but there is scientific uncertainty there), while Craig’s definition covers physical reality if that one piece is all there is, but also covers more than that, if there is more than that. That’s why his definition is better.

The expression in bold goes "where", that we need to concern ourselves with wondering (or otherwise claiming as in your case) if such definition is "better than" the more productive one I present?
Anyway's, I am bored with this circular and am more interested in examining the kalam's claims in relation to the beliefs that those who support it (as better/best) according to said beliefs about the cause.

Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument support the traditional Christian idea of "God"?
Summary of Post #2 of the linked thread.
Your comprehensive post raises several thought-provoking points and engages deeply with the complexities of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, William Lane Craig's defense, and the implications for the nature of God. You have structured your arguments systematically, addressing key premises of the Kalam argument and analyzing Craig's responses. Your articulation of the potential shifts in understanding God, especially in relation to concepts of timelessness, immateriality, and the idea that the universe exists within the mind of God, adds depth to the discussion.

[The Tanager]

The expression in bold goes "where", that we need to concern ourselves with wondering (or otherwise claiming as in your case) if such definition is "better than" the more productive one I present?
Anyway's, I am bored with this circular and am more interested in examining the kalam's claims in relation to the beliefs that those who support it (as better/best) according to said beliefs about the cause.

Your definition is not more productive; it's more limiting because it only talks about the current state of spatio-temporal matter, not all possible states of spatio-temporal matter. This isn't circular, but at the foundation of analyzing the Kalam properly.

[William]

The expression in bold goes "where", that we need to concern ourselves with wondering (or otherwise claiming as in your case) if such definition is "better than" the more productive one I present?
Anyway's, I am bored with this circular and am more interested in examining the kalam's claims in relation to the beliefs that those who support it (as better/best) according to said beliefs about the cause.

Your definition is not more productive; it's more limiting because it only talks about the current state of spatio-temporal matter, not all possible states of spatio-temporal matter. This isn't circular, but at the foundation of analyzing the Kalam properly.

As I alluded to in my previous post, analyzing the Kalam fully is the better focus than this more trivial focus of arguing what exactly IS "The Universe" - doesn't get us very near to breaking from the ennui such focus ensures - at least for the personality I am. My interest is in the focus of determining the nature of the cause and what Craigs argument for the overall Kalam inevitably points to re that.

The purposeful consideration of the particulars, rather than the defensible abstracts.

Which is to say, I am not interested in further discussion with you on the defensible abstracts, as my focus is on more (better) interesting things.

[The Tanager]

The expression in bold goes "where", that we need to concern ourselves with wondering (or otherwise claiming as in your case) if such definition is "better than" the more productive one I present?
Anyway's, I am bored with this circular and am more interested in examining the kalam's claims in relation to the beliefs that those who support it (as better/best) according to said beliefs about the cause.

Your definition is not more productive; it's more limiting because it only talks about the current state of spatio-temporal matter, not all possible states of spatio-temporal matter. This isn't circular, but at the foundation of analyzing the Kalam properly.

As I alluded to in my previous post, analyzing the Kalam fully is the better focus than this more trivial focus of arguing what exactly IS "The Universe" - doesn't get us very near to breaking from the ennui such focus ensures - at least for the personality I am. My interest is in the focus of determining the nature of the cause and what Craigs argument for the overall Kalam inevitably points to re that.

The purposeful consideration of the particulars, rather than the defensible abstracts.

Which is to say, I am not interested in further discussion with you on the defensible abstracts, as my focus is on more (better) interesting things.

How in the world is getting the definitions of key terms in the argument correct a trivial focus? Getting the definitions right is always vital to understanding the particulars of any argument. We must be talking past each other somehow right now.