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]

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

[Replying to The Tanager in post #10]

This thread is about the Kalam, so I’ll only comment on how it applies to that.

Then do so.

Which premise of the Kalam (including the extended premises) do you feel it doesn't apply to?

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.

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.

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.

This "unknowable assumption" appears to be linked to the claim that a "transcendent realm" exists (which perhaps is contained in the "logic" of the "extended premises" you mentioned?) and is unknowable in terms of any human science being able to prove or disprove its actual existence.

The manner in which you are arguing the "conclusion" that the God of the Bible "must be" supernatural is because of the conclusions one reaches re the kalam.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #11]

I don't see how it deals with any premise. So, which premise does it defeat, in your view?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #11]

I don't see how it deals with any premise.

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



(Premise re kalam.) the universe began to exist.

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.)



Perhaps the " extended premises" (as Tanager referred to it) has it that the IFX is "part of what the kalam "means" by "The Universe", in which case, (if true) such changes the original premise in that "The Universe" (as redefined by the extended) had no beginning re the alternate explanation I am offering for critique.

The "boundaries" only occur when the belief that "both the empirical and any transcendent realm" are presumed to being "Real". When the supernatural notion is removed, the boundary disappears and what is left is what is Real.

In effect, supernaturalism attempts to steal the Real and bestow it upon the crown of a make-believe "transcendent realm".

In this case (re the natural alternative offered for critique) the theft is of the logical notion of an eternal cause. Thus extending the meaning of the universe to include the IFX (from which the universe derives) anything which can possibly be confirmed by the empirical to being REAL, will automatically be counted by supernaturalists as "The Universe" which "had to have had a beginning".

What I don't buy into, is the claim that a "transcendent realm is necessary" and have seen no evidence presented, that the real existence of this "transcendent realm" this is the best logical conclusion to accept.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #13]

Are you saying that this shows that the universe didn't have to begin to exist? If so, how does it show that?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #13]

Are you saying that this shows that the universe didn't have to begin to exist? If so, how does it show that?

That depends upon what you mean be "the universe", correct?

What I am saying, is what I said.

"The "boundaries" only occur when the belief that "both the empirical and any transcendent realm" are presumed to being "Real". When the supernatural notion is removed, the boundary disappears and what is left is what is Real.

In effect, supernaturalism attempts to steal the Real and bestow it upon the crown of a make-believe "transcendent realm".

In this case (re the natural alternative offered for critique) the theft is of the logical notion of an eternal cause. Thus extending the meaning of the universe to include the IFX (from which the universe derives) anything which can possibly be confirmed by the empirical to being REAL, will automatically be counted by supernaturalists as "The Universe" which "had to have had a beginning".

What I don't buy into, is the claim that a "transcendent realm is necessary" and have seen no evidence presented, that the real existence of this this "transcendent realm" is "the best logical conclusion to accept."

[The Tanager]

That depends upon what you mean be "the universe", correct?

What I am saying, is what I said.

"The "boundaries" only occur when the belief that "both the empirical and any transcendent realm" are presumed to being "Real". When the supernatural notion is removed, the boundary disappears and what is left is what is Real.

In effect, supernaturalism attempts to steal the Real and bestow it upon the crown of a make-believe "transcendent realm".

In this case (re the natural alternative offered for critique) the theft is of the logical notion of an eternal cause. Thus extending the meaning of the universe to include the IFX (from which the universe derives) anything which can possibly be confirmed by the empirical to being REAL, will automatically be counted by supernaturalists as "The Universe" which "had to have had a beginning".

What I don't buy into, is the claim that a "transcendent realm is necessary" and have seen no evidence presented, that the real existence of this this "transcendent realm" is "the best logical conclusion to accept."

The boundary of time (which is what the first premise is concerned with) has nothing to do with any belief about both the empirical and transcendent realm being presumed "Real". It doesn't address that question at all.

For the Kalam, the 'universe' can include anything that is spatio-temporal (so, just the Big Bang or spatio-temporal states prior to the Big Bang). So, how does this counter the first premise?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #16]

The boundary of time (which is what the first premise is concerned with) has nothing to do with any belief about both the empirical and transcendent realm being presumed "Real". It doesn't address that question at all.

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.

For the Kalam, the 'universe' can include anything that is spatio-temporal (so, just the Big Bang or spatio-temporal states prior to the Big Bang).

No. For the kalam (not the extended version) the universe is only that which begun. The alternative I have offered does not include any "spatio-temporal states prior to the Big Bang" The IFX is infinite and eternal.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist. (The Big Bang appears as the evidence)
Therefore, the universe has a cause. The Big Bang and subsequent universe is the result of the cause.

Are you unable to critique the alternative I have presented? If not, then the "extended kalam" you are trying to promote as a real alternative, is unnecessary as the original kalam only concerns itself with the universe, and it's premises do not in themselves disagree with the natural alternative I have presented.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #17]

So, it sounds like your IFX wouldn't do anything against premise 1 (since it isn't spatial or temporal) or premise 2 (since it doesn't begin to exist) and, therefore, does nothing against premise 3 which follows necessarily from the first two premises.

So, now we go into the extended premises. The OP didn't word these extended premises that well. I would say it is the following:

4. If the universe has a cause of its beginning, then the first cause must be uncaused, transcend space and time, be immaterial and non-physical, be unimaginably powerful, and personal.

5. Therefore, the first cause is uncaused, transcend space and time, be immaterial and non-physical, be unimaginably powerful, and personal.

Premise 5 follows necessarily, so you are thinking the IFX counters premise 4 perhaps? If so, how does it do that? It doesn't seem to satisfy premise 4, but how does it defeat premise 4?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #17]

So, it sounds like your IFX wouldn't do anything against premise 1 (since it isn't spatial or temporal) or premise 2 (since it doesn't begin to exist) and, therefore, does nothing against premise 3 which follows necessarily from the first two premises.

So, now we go into the extended premises. The OP didn't word these extended premises that well. I would say it is the following:

4. If the universe has a cause of its beginning, then the first cause must be uncaused, transcend space and time, be immaterial and non-physical, be unimaginably powerful, and personal.

5. Therefore, the first cause is uncaused, transcend space and time, be immaterial and non-physical, be unimaginably powerful, and personal.

Premise 5 follows necessarily, so you are thinking the IFX counters premise 4 perhaps? If so, how does it do that? It doesn't seem to satisfy premise 4, but how does it defeat premise 4?

4. If the universe has a cause of its beginning, then the first cause must be uncaused,

The IFX is uncaused (being eternal).

Must transcend space and time

The IFX transcends the space and time of the universe, as per the description of the diagram I provided.

Must be immaterial and non-physical.

What is meant by this and are these different? Where doe the idea come from that this must be the case?

The IFX is one particle (X) rather than non-material.

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

Must be unimaginably powerful

Re the Big Bang having created the universe? The Cause (of the big bang) must be very powerful, but since we have the evidence, (the universe itself) we don't need to "imagine" anything. Therefore, it is only necessary to say that the IFX is as powerful as the evidence supports it to be. There is no requirement for us to assume anything else in that regard.

and must be personal.

As in - "Mindful" and thus "purposeful", yes?

[The Tanager]

The IFX transcends the space and time of the universe, as per the description of the diagram I provided.

But the ‘universe’ includes all space and all time, so transcending the space and time of this “bubble” isn’t enough. The cause must transcend all space and all time because the ‘universe’ refers to all space and time. If your IFX is spatial, it does not satisfy this premise.

What is meant by this and are these different? Where doe the idea come from that this must be the case?

The IFX is one particle (X) rather than non-material.

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

There might be a technicality I’m missing, but they seem to be basically the same thing; I think it is just a way to cover all the terms used. It necessarily follows from this cause being the Cause of all spacetime. Matter is what takes up space. Matter is physical. So, this non-material thing must also be non-physical.

Re the Big Bang having created the universe? The Cause (of the big bang) must be very powerful, but since we have the evidence, (the universe itself) we don't need to "imagine" anything. Therefore, it is only necessary to say that the IFX is as powerful as the evidence supports it to be. There is no requirement for us to assume anything else in that regard.

That’s not what “unimaginably” means in Craig’s sentence. It is simply a way to say “extremely” powerful may not be doing it justice. It must have more power than anything we’ve ever encountered since it created all of spacetime reality.