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??

[Aquitasium]

Craig claimed P1 to P3 is acceptable by Science.
Even if we accept [tentatively] P1 to P3 is scientifically true,
it is still a fallacy to take a big leap from the human-based scientific empirical domain to the transcendental [beyond experience & the empirical] domain, i.e. its apples & oranges, oil & water.
In this case, Craig committed a fallacy of conflation and equivocation.

[boatsnguitars]

Religionist need to find gaps to insert their God, therefore they look for amorphous arguments, or convoluted arguments to confuse their followers.
It's not about finding truth but finding ways to convince themselves of a story the gullible will believe, in order to feel good about their Faith.
We all know there is no God, Christians just play pretend.

[The Tanager]

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.

Hello Aquitasium! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I like taking a step at a time, so I’d like to start with your first critique before moving onto the others. Why do you think the argument assumes the universe had a beginning? It argues for it and not just from science. Some proponents do argue that the best scientific theories seem to point to a beginning (even if there were states of the universe prior to the Big Bang). But even if science is undecided there, there are two philosophical arguments offered in support of this premise that seem to rule out science logically being able to give us a universe with no beginning. This isn’t assuming anything. I can understand you disagreeing with the arguments, but not saying the argument assumes the premise.

[William]

Craig claimed P1 to P3 is acceptable by Science.
Even if we accept [tentatively] P1 to P3 is scientifically true,
it is still a fallacy to take a big leap from the human-based scientific empirical domain to the transcendental [beyond experience & the empirical] domain, i.e. its apples & oranges, oil & water.
In this case, Craig committed a fallacy of conflation and equivocation.

I think there is something to this critique. It isn't even about the scientific theory that say's the universe had a beginning which somehow validates the belief in an assumed supernatural cause.

Even from a biblical perspective, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", it does not say that first God created the substance from which the universe was then made of. Therefore there is no necessity to assume or infer from the description that God created the universe from some previously non-existent material (re ex nihilo) or that the God-mind itself exists "outside" of the universe.

Science may not confirm or debunk that we exist within a created thing (the universe) or that there is a cause for the universe existing, but neither does it support that since the theory that the universe had a beginning, that the cause of the universe is "therefore supernatural."

[Difflugia]

In this case, Craig committed a fallacy of conflation and equivocation.

The rest of us just call that Christian apologetics.

[William]

From another forum.




Philosopher 1. The word 'space' means or refers to a distance between and surrounding physical matter.

So, 'space' is nothing more than just that distance between and around physical matter, which is obviously always expanding and contracting when matter, and/or particles or objects of matter, move further apart or closer together.


Philosopher 2. What does the space consist of?

I see in reading your recent thread which you linked, you write "the only relative thing there is here is the distinction, still, between matter and space, only" my overall impression of your post there is that you think space is not made of matter?

In that sense, something which is not made of anything, does not actually exist (as something) yet clearly the apparently non-existing nothing has to actually exist in order for everything which is something, to appear to be something/everything.

Even if that something/everything was just one object (of whatever size) and no other object existed, it could not be experienced as something unless it existed in (within) a space.

It is a bit like my asking one to imagine the following gap between these words....














...and these words, as "infinite"...it is bound within the frame which distinguishes it and allows one to imagine it...yet one cannot imagine it as infinite without referring to it as "something", which then requires a boundary of some sort.


As per the thread topic, "mind" is also an aspect of the overall universe (certainly re earth) and is the required thing which allows all else (including space [and?] matter) to be acknowledged as existing and examined in order that the mind can perhaps understand the universe.

Recently I have been thinking along the following lines.

There is an infinite field of particle X.
A section of this IFX is imaged below.



The dot (circled in red) represents the initial moment of the Big Bang (the universe we minds are within).



Whatever caused that to happen in the IFX can be argued about but for now my focus is on the effects.


As the expansion occurs (due to the force of the Big Bang event) over time (measured within the effect) a bubble is formed in the IFX and the interaction causes that part of the IFX to transform into a number of different substances made up of various combinations, all of which can be reduced to the one particle (IFX) from where they originate.



Now let me remove the boundary representing the section of the IFX being focused upon.



Now one can imagine the bubble of the universe within an infinite field of IFX. The IFX is the "space" and the space is not "nothing" but rather "everything" and "things" which come from the IFX (such as the universe we minds are within) can be sourced or traced to the IFX.

Now even if our universe eventually runs out of momentum and contracts, it will eventually return to its former IFX state.
Or, if the momentum causes it to bubble and appear to disconnect from the IFX...



...again, once we remove the boundary, while that universe is apparently free floating as an individual "thing", it is still within the infinite space of IFX. (The IFX is infinite in every direction.)

[The Tanager]

Craig claimed P1 to P3 is acceptable by Science.
Even if we accept [tentatively] P1 to P3 is scientifically true,
it is still a fallacy to take a big leap from the human-based scientific empirical domain to the transcendental [beyond experience & the empirical] domain, i.e. its apples & oranges, oil & water.
In this case, Craig committed a fallacy of conflation and equivocation.

I think there is something to this critique. It isn't even about the scientific theory that say's the universe had a beginning which somehow validates the belief in an assumed supernatural cause.

Even from a biblical perspective, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", it does not say that first God created the substance from which the universe was then made of. Therefore there is no necessity to assume or infer from the description that God created the universe from some previously non-existent material (re ex nihilo) or that the God-mind itself exists "outside" of the universe.

Science may not confirm or debunk that we exist within a created thing (the universe) or that there is a cause for the universe existing, but neither does it support that since the theory that the universe had a beginning, that the cause of the universe is "therefore supernatural."

First, I don't see how this is a fallacy of conflation and equivocation, even if the critique was accurate. What is being conflated or equivocated on?

Second, I don't see how it is a problem to move from an empirical claim to a non-empirical claim. Reality (both the empirical and any transcendent realm) is still logical. Logic can help us bridge this gap. Logic alone, without any empirical data behind it at all is a problem because it just gives us logical possibilities. It can rule stuff out but can't rule it in, so to speak.

Third, you still misunderstand the reasoning, William. The Bible has nothing to do with the Kalam directly. It's logic built off of empirical observations that get us to the conclusion, nothing else.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #8]

I don't see how it is a problem to move from an empirical claim to a non-empirical claim. Reality (both the empirical and any transcendent realm) is still logical.

What reality are you speaking of re this imagined "transcendent realm"?

For example, are you speaking of reported human experiences such as NDEs? Something else?

It is difficult to agree with the "logic" of an imagined realm based upon the very limited statement you have made.

Logic can help us bridge this gap. Logic alone, without any empirical data behind it at all is a problem because it just gives us logical possibilities. It can rule stuff out but can't rule it in, so to speak.

What are you attempting to argue here? What is there to "rule in" re the Cause of something which began, which itself has been "ruled out" as anything BUT a "transcendent realm" by those who consider the existence of a "transcendent realm" to being "real" and therefore (somehow) ruled in as "logical"?

You still misunderstand the reasoning, William. The Bible has nothing to do with the Kalam directly. It's logic built off of empirical observations that get us to the conclusion, nothing else.

By "it" are you referring to the Bible or the Kalam Tanager?

Are those who argue for the biblical God as being the "Cause" the Kalam is referring to, not using their beliefs re the nature of that God being "transcendent" and also creating the universe ex nihilo?

Why is the reasoning I give in this post unable to logically apply to science or the Kalam?

[The Tanager]

What reality are you speaking of re this imagined "transcendent realm"?

For example, are you speaking of reported human experiences such as NDEs? Something else?

It is difficult to agree with the "logic" of an imagined realm based upon the very limited statement you have made.

Aquitasium (it seems to me) is arguing that the logic of another realm may be totally different from the logic of our reality. My point is that it can’t be. Logic applies to any reality the same. This isn’t an argument for any particular reality beyond ours, just a statement about how reality itself must be logical and how logic built from empirical observations can lead to further non-empirical truths.

Are those who argue for the biblical God as being the "Cause" the Kalam is referring to, not using their beliefs re the nature of that God being "transcendent" and also creating the universe ex nihilo.

Who does that? Christians use other arguments to narrow down which God exists; they don’t use the Kalam for that. These beliefs about God (as the Cause) don’t get put into the argument, but come from the argument as conclusions.

Why is the reasoning I give in this post unable to logically apply to science or the Kalam?

This thread is about the Kalam, so I’ll only comment on how it applies to that. Which premise of the Kalam (including the extended premises) do you feel it applies to?