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?)

[boatsnguitars]

Welcome back from your suspension.

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #19]

Quantum Indeterminacy:
At the quantum level, particles can come into existence without a cause in the traditional sense. Quantum events, as described by principles like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, exhibit inherent indeterminacy and unpredictability. It challenges the notion that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, at least in the way causality is commonly understood at the macroscopic level.

At the quantum level, particles can APPEAR to come into existence without a cause in the traditional sense. These particle appear to come from nothing but logically would have to come from something.
If we accept the hypothesis, we would have to conclude that since these cannot come from nothing, they must come from something.

This has nothing to do with Something or Nothing - it's about Cause.
We already presume there is Something when we talk about Cause.

Causality and Time:
The concept of causality relies on the existence of time, yet time itself is a property of the universe. Asking what caused the universe to begin presupposes a framework of time in which causality operates. However, at the point of the universe's origin, as suggested by the Big Bang theory, time itself may have begun. In such a scenario, the traditional understanding of causality becomes difficult to apply.

Re that, it has not been agreed on as to what is meant by "The Universe".

OK, then the problem gets worse for the Kalam proponent.

Infinite Regress:
If one asserts that everything must have a cause, then the cause itself must have a cause, leading to an infinite regress of causes. This raises questions about the coherence of an infinite chain of causes stretching into the past. The Kalam argument avoids this infinite regress by positing a first uncaused cause, yet this move introduces its own set of philosophical challenges. (Theists simply insert God because they want to end the debate and get people to kneel to their favorite priest.)

This can be adjusted by formulating premises which incorporates the concepts into one thing.
Presently I am engaging with a set of premises which appear to solve that problem.
(This is based upon the concept that "The Universe" is defined as including more than just this current one we are experiencing.)

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (begin exist and end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that The Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

Shoehorn anything you want into it. It doesn't make it a better argument.

Multiverse Hypothesis:
Some cosmological models, such as certain interpretations of string theory, propose the existence of a multiverse—a vast ensemble of universes with different properties. In such a scenario, the concept of a singular "beginning" of the universe becomes more complex. The cause of our universe, if it exists, might be rooted in the dynamics of the multiverse rather than a singular event.

In my model, multiverses (no matter the number of) are still part of the overall Field Fabric of "The Universe" if indeed "The Universe" is defined as ALL THAT IS. (not just all that we experience as existing here in this one particular universe)

To briefly illustrate.

Analogy.
A 2-dimensional plain which extends in every direction (of 2 dimensions). That is The Universe according to the premises.
On the fabric of this eternal field a point becomes energetic, and this is the Big Bang. The energy uses the inert matter the field consists of, to form things within the bubble that has grown upon said Field Fabric and gets all of the material to achieve this phenomena, from the eternal field itself.
(Re that, there is no reason as to why multitudes of bubbles cannot exist using the same material provided, at various points on the Eternal Field Fabric.)

I acknowledge that use of the analogy imposes (through implication) an “object” or “space” in which the 2-dimentional Field Fabric “thing” exists, and thus is inadequate imagery until all that space is filled.

A way of achieving this is to take the two-dimensional Eternal Field Fabric and stack it on top of itself in every dimensional direction – eternally.

Developing fictional ideas about the as-yet-undetermined form of the universe is fun, isn't it? It's humbling to know we are all wrong about it.

[William]

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (begin exist and end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that The Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

Shoehorn anything you want into it. It doesn't make it a better argument.

What makes the premises no better than the ones of Kalam?

[Rational Agnostic]

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?)

I don't agree with premise 1, and there's no reason to accept premise 1 as true. This is a classic example of the fallacy of composition--the idea that the universe has to have a cause because it began to exist is inferred because all of the COMPONENTS of the universe that we have observed that have beginnings have had causes, but it's quite a leap to say that the sum of all the components must have a cause because of this. An analogous fallacy would be to say that because every human is conscious, then the human race must be conscious--there is no reason to suppose that this is true and most people would laugh at such an assumption. Not to mention, I don't think it's clear on what it means for something to "begin to exist" and certainly the universe "beginning to exist" out of nothing is much different than any other thing that we've seen "beginning to exist" as a result of a rearrangement of physical things that already existed. I don't think these two types of beginnings are even remotely analogous or comparable.

[William]

[Replying to Rational Agnostic in post #23]

I don't agree with premise 1, and there's no reason to accept premise 1 as true. This is a classic example of the fallacy of composition--the idea that the universe has to have a cause because it began to exist is inferred because all of the COMPONENTS of the universe that we have observed that have beginnings have had causes, but it's quite a leap to say that the sum of all the components must have a cause because of this. An analogous fallacy would be to say that because every human is conscious, then the human race must be conscious--there is no reason to suppose that this is true and most people would laugh at such an assumption. Not to mention, I don't think it's clear on what it means for something to "begin to exist" and certainly the universe "beginning to exist" out of nothing is much different than any other thing that we've seen "beginning to exist" as a result of a rearrangement of physical things that already existed. I don't think these two types of beginnings are even remotely analogous or comparable.

How about a critique of the following premises re your reasoning above.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (begin exist and end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that The Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

[Rational Agnostic]

[Replying to Rational Agnostic in post #23]

I don't agree with premise 1, and there's no reason to accept premise 1 as true. This is a classic example of the fallacy of composition--the idea that the universe has to have a cause because it began to exist is inferred because all of the COMPONENTS of the universe that we have observed that have beginnings have had causes, but it's quite a leap to say that the sum of all the components must have a cause because of this. An analogous fallacy would be to say that because every human is conscious, then the human race must be conscious--there is no reason to suppose that this is true and most people would laugh at such an assumption. Not to mention, I don't think it's clear on what it means for something to "begin to exist" and certainly the universe "beginning to exist" out of nothing is much different than any other thing that we've seen "beginning to exist" as a result of a rearrangement of physical things that already existed. I don't think these two types of beginnings are even remotely analogous or comparable.

How about a critique of the following premises re your reasoning above.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (begin exist and end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that The Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

So anything that exists is a being? Does that include rocks, sand, dirt, water, atoms, quarks, electrons, etc.?

[William]

[Replying to Rational Agnostic in post #25]

So anything that exists is a being? Does that include rocks, sand, dirt, water, atoms, quarks, electrons, etc.?

Yes - and buildings et al. In philosophy "being" doesn't necessarily only define biological critters.

(existence.
"the railway brought many towns into being")

The universe can be regarded as existing, therefore as being.