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

[William]

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

There has been ongoing debate on this message board re the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its supposed supporting of the traditional Christian idea of "God" being a "supernatural" being, who exists outside of this universe which it created, (from something which did not exist prior to it being made by said supernatural being re the theory of ex nihilo) and that this being is necessarily uncaused, mindful, immaterial, timeless, and spaceless.

That is why I decided to create this thread to explore possible answers to the OPQ.

I think that in some points the two converge - such as God is causeless, and God is mindful.
The departure appears to be that God is immaterial (since there are many stories within the Christian Tradition which have God appear as a material being) and that God is timeless (in the particular understanding that God is eternal rather than God can and does experience time along with the rest of us here in this universe.)

"God is spaceless" at this point appears to me to have no particular meaning. Other are welcome to say what they think that means to them if they so choose.

Here is a general outline of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause: This premise asserts that things don't just pop into existence without a cause. Objects and events have causes that bring them into being.
2. The universe began to exist: This premise is supported by scientific evidence such as the Big Bang theory, suggesting that the universe had a finite beginning in the past.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause: Combining the first two premises, the conclusion is drawn that the universe must have a cause for its existence.
4. The cause must be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial: Since the universe itself had a beginning, its cause must be something beyond the universe and its physical laws. The cause must be uncaused (to avoid infinite regress), timeless (since it caused time), spaceless (since it caused space), and immaterial (since it caused matter).
5. The cause must have a will or intentionality: This follows from the fact that the cause brought the universe into existence at a specific point in time.
6. This cause is what people traditionally call God: The conclusion of the argument is that the cause of the universe possesses attributes that align with the concept of God.

[William]

Premise 4 appears to have items which are not implied in the first three premises.
1. If we accept that the universe been spoken of here is the universe we exist within, and to avoid the infinite regression (what caused the cause ad Infinium) one can agree with an uncaused cause.
2. If we agree that time is relative to the universe we exist within, and meaningful only in that context, then to have a cause which is timeless also requires that this cause has no moving parts. This cause would have to be motionless, which means there is requirement for an explanation which shows how it is logically possible for a motionless cause to create not only physical stuff (our universe) but to do so without moving, because movement requires both space and time.
3. If we agree that this cause must also be immaterial, we have further problems in explaining the points in 2.

Lets’ unpack each of these points offered.
Critics may argue that if everything needs a cause, why exempt the uncaused cause. In doing so they ignore the “Everything which has a beginning” part.

1. Uncaused Cause:
• The idea of an uncaused cause is introduced to address the issue of an infinite regress of causes. The premise "Everything that has a beginning has a cause" is then followed by "The universe began to exist," leading to the conclusion that the universe has a cause. The exemption of the uncaused cause is specifically applied to things that begin to exist. The argument does not necessarily claim that everything, in an absolute sense, requires a cause. Rather, it is focused on contingent entities within the universe that come into existence. The exemption of the uncaused cause is an attempt to avoid an infinite chain of causes.
2. Timelessness and Immateriality:
• The concepts of timelessness and immateriality add further layers of complexity. If the cause of the universe is timeless, it exists independently of time, and if it is immaterial, it lacks physical substance. Our understanding of causation often involves temporal relations and physical interactions. The challenge is to conceive how a cause could exist and bring about effects without being subject to time and without having material properties.
• If the cause is timeless, it might not undergo changes or movements in the way we typically understand them within our temporal framework. The notion of a motionless cause may be a way to express the idea that this cause is not subject to the changes that occur within time.

So, it could be agreed that the cause must be uncaused but that the claim that it also must be timeless and spaceless simply because it is outside of our universes time and space, is questionable on the grounds that this presumption has us wondering how such a cause can cause such a universe as ours.
If we go to the next premise “The cause must have a will or intentionality: This follows from the fact that the cause brought the universe into existence at a specific point in time” we have further problems to address.
For example, if the cause is indeed timeless, then what specific “point in time” is being argued for here?
Secondly, if the cause is mindful, what option do we have but to claim from that, that the universe is simply a thought being had in the mind of said cause?

Which brings us to point 6. “This cause is what people traditionally call God: The conclusion of the argument is that the cause of the universe possesses attributes that align with the concept of God.”
I would have to say that it aligns with how some folk believe “God” to be, but this in itself does not solve the various problems of the overall points of the kalam which are found suitably lacking re explanation of the premises which unfold from one another, therein.

This brings us now to William Lane Craig. Does he address any of these problems and provide any fresh solutions?

1. Timelessness and Immateriality:
• Craig acknowledges the challenges of understanding how a timeless and immaterial cause could bring about a temporal and material universe. He argues that the cause, while timeless and immaterial in its essential nature, can interact with the temporal realm in a way that is analogous to how a timeless mind can engage with a temporal world.

What does Craig offer in any way which allows for us to understand the goings on of a timeless mind”?

1. Divine Timelessness:
• Craig posits that God, as the cause of the universe, is timeless in his essential nature. Divine timelessness means that God does not exist within time or experience temporal succession. Instead, God transcends time altogether.
2. Analogy with Human Experience:
• Craig uses analogical reasoning to help make sense of the interaction between a timeless cause and a temporal effect. He suggests that just as a human mind can think about and affect events in the temporal realm, God's timeless mind can "choose" to create the universe at a specific point in time.
3. No Temporal Succession for God:
• While the universe has a temporal beginning, Craig argues that God's act of creation is simultaneous with his timeless existence. In other words, there is no temporal succession within God; the act of creation doesn't occur after a period of inactivity.
4. Analogy's Limitations:
• Craig acknowledges that any analogy has limitations. The comparison between human minds and God's mind is only an attempt to provide a conceptual framework for understanding, and it may not capture the full depth of the divine reality.

Craig's approach to divine timelessness is rooted in the broader theological and philosophical tradition, drawing on ideas from classical theism.

It appears to me then, that Craig is depending upon traditional beliefs in an effort to explain the Cause (which he believes is the Christian idea of God) but it also appears that he is really arguing that the universe is essentially something happening in the mind of that God.

What I am arguing here is that what Craig offers by way of explanation forces the conclusion that the universe is happening within the God-mind, because the description of the God is essentially that it is fundamentally a timeless spaceless immaterial mind.

It could be argued that the very fact of time and space is evident that what is being “held” within the cause is subject to change and development – which is what we would expect of a thing within a mind to behave like.
It can also be argued that we within that mind-universe (also “having” minds) would experience that universe as a physical thing and a thing consisting of time and space. We would (naturally enough) think of the universe as “Real” from our perspective even if it were simply a thought in the mind of its cause, which could either go on indefinitely or cease at any “point in time”.

Key points from my argument:
1. Subject to Change and Development:
• The very existence of time and space within the universe implies a dynamic, changing, and developing reality. This could be seen as consistent with the idea that the universe, as a mental construct, is subject to the thoughts or intentions of the cause, which might include changes and developments.

2. Perspective from Within the Mind-Universe:
• From the perspective of beings within the universe (such as us), the universe would be experienced as a physical and temporal reality. Even if the universe is ultimately a thought within the mind of its cause, our perception of it as real and governed by physical laws would be a natural consequence of our position within that mind-universe.

3. Reality from Our Perspective:
• The argument acknowledges that, from our subjective standpoint within the mind-universe, we would perceive the universe as real. This aligns with the idea that, even if the ultimate reality is mental, our experience and understanding of the universe are shaped by our position within it.

What I am pointing out then, is that Craigs explanations only serve to point to these other notions which are traditionally not how the Christian idea of the cause (God) is presented or believed to be.
Whether this “borrowing” from other metaphysical non-Christian beliefs (certain forms of idealism or mentalism) is purposeful or not, what Craig brings into his arguments (by way of trying to explain those apparent problems) does indeed introduce such concepts as necessary.

The focus is on Craigs arguments in his effort to further explain apparent inconsistencies. In effect, his doing so introduces non-traditional (to Christian beliefs about the nature of an uncaused cause) elements such as this idea that the universe is happening inside the mind of the cause. Traditionally the universe is argued as being a real and independent thing from “God” – something which “God” created out of nothing that existed before, and the attempt to answer the inconsistencies has Craig introducing concepts which themselves point to the idea that the universe is a thought and that the cause being timeless spaceless immaterial and mindful allows for the conclusion that this “God” is a mind, (and that alone) and everything (this universe or any other) is a construct inside said mind, rather than outside of said mind.

[The Tanager]

Premise 4 appears to have items which are not implied in the first three premises.
1. If we accept that the universe been spoken of here is the universe we exist within, and to avoid the infinite regression (what caused the cause ad Infinium) one can agree with an uncaused cause.

Why should we accept the bolded part above? This is a major flaw in your analysis. If you don’t get the definitions right, then (of course) you’ll mess up in analyzing the conclusion.

2. If we agree that time is relative to the universe we exist within, and meaningful only in that context,

Another misunderstood term as time isn’t relative to the universe we exist within in the kalam (or in general), but extends to the absolute concept of ‘time’; thus another flaw.

then to have a cause which is timeless also requires that this cause has no moving parts. This cause would have to be motionless, which means there is requirement for an explanation which shows how it is logically possible for a motionless cause to create not only physical stuff (our universe) but to do so without moving, because movement requires both space and time.

Causing something isn’t the same as movement (well, ancient Greeks and medievalists used ‘motion’ to refer to any change, but we moderns don’t), spatial movement isn't logically a part of change and maybe not even temporal movement (as I’ve told you, I’m agnostic on that point right now but I lean towards it not being necessary).

• The concepts of timelessness and immateriality add further layers of complexity. If the cause of the universe is timeless, it exists independently of time, and if it is immaterial, it lacks physical substance. Our understanding of causation often involves temporal relations and physical interactions. The challenge is to conceive how a cause could exist and bring about effects without being subject to time and without having material properties.

Our understanding of causation does depend on temporal relations, but not necessarily in the cause itself. And causation isn’t tied to physical interactions just because the interactions we see are physical ones. There is no logical challenge in conceiving how a cause could exist and bring about effects while being timeless or immaterial.

• If the cause is timeless, it might not undergo changes or movements in the way we typically understand them within our temporal framework. The notion of a motionless cause may be a way to express the idea that this cause is not subject to the changes that occur within time.

Time, in the Kalam’s sense (which isn’t just the Kalam’s, but the correct philosophical/scientific notion of time) is the measurement of change. Any change requires temporality in the thing that changes.

If we go to the next premise “The cause must have a will or intentionality: This follows from the fact that the cause brought the universe into existence at a specific point in time” we have further problems to address.
For example, if the cause is indeed timeless, then what specific “point in time” is being argued for here?

Ultimately, the beginning point of time is being argued for in the Kalam.

Secondly, if the cause is mindful, what option do we have but to claim from that, that the universe is simply a thought being had in the mind of said cause?

This assumes minds are only the kinds of things that other beings have. Why believe that? Proponents believe that this cause is a Mind, not that it has one.

What I am pointing out then, is that Craigs explanations only serve to point to these other notions which are traditionally not how the Christian idea of the cause (God) is presented or believed to be.
Whether this “borrowing” from other metaphysical non-Christian beliefs (certain forms of idealism or mentalism) is purposeful or not, what Craig brings into his arguments (by way of trying to explain those apparent problems) does indeed introduce such concepts as necessary.

The focus is on Craigs arguments in his effort to further explain apparent inconsistencies. In effect, his doing so introduces non-traditional (to Christian beliefs about the nature of an uncaused cause) elements such as this idea that the universe is happening inside the mind of the cause. Traditionally the universe is argued as being a real and independent thing from “God” – something which “God” created out of nothing that existed before, and the attempt to answer the inconsistencies has Craig introducing concepts which themselves point to the idea that the universe is a thought and that the cause being timeless spaceless immaterial and mindful allows for the conclusion that this “God” is a mind, (and that alone) and everything (this universe or any other) is a construct inside said mind, rather than outside of said mind.

Craig isn’t an Idealist and he doesn’t introduce non-traditional Christian elements that show the universe is happening within the mind of God. He presents the universe as a construct of a Mind, outside of that Mind, not within it because he thinks Idealism fails as a philosophy for other reasons. His elements don’t point to Idealism being true. They also don’t disprove it because that is not what the argument addresses.

[William]

Premise 4 appears to have items which are not implied in the first three premises.
1. If we accept that the universe been spoken of here is the universe we exist within, and to avoid the infinite regression (what caused the cause ad Infinium) one can agree with an uncaused cause.

Why should we accept the bolded part above?

Why shouldn't we? When scientists speak about the universe, they accept that the universe been spoken of is the universe we exist within.
If the Kalam is talking about some other universe, then of what use is it other than to argue from a circular position?
What use is that, to define the universe as something outside of this universe, and then argue only from that position?

[The Tanager]

Premise 4 appears to have items which are not implied in the first three premises.
1. If we accept that the universe been spoken of here is the universe we exist within, and to avoid the infinite regression (what caused the cause ad Infinium) one can agree with an uncaused cause.

Why should we accept the bolded part above?

Why shouldn't we? When scientists speak about the universe, they accept that the universe been spoken of is the universe we exist within.
If the Kalam is talking about some other universe, then of what use is it other than to argue from a circular position?
What use is that, to define the universe as something outside of this universe, and then argue only from that position?

First off, scientists don't just speak about this universe. They speak about possible other permutations of eneregy/matter outside of this current universe quite a bit.

Second, the Kalam is talking about all energy/matter, not just the current form of energy/matter. That isn't another 'universe', but the stuff that makes up the reality we live in. Why not seek knowledge on that stuff rather than just the current status of that stuff? This isn't circular. It isn't defining the universe as something outside of this universe, but of talking about the energy/matter we see around us and not limiting that discussion to its current state. Why limit our exploration, when we can go beyond that limit?

[William]

The question of this thread topic is.
"Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument support the traditional Christian idea of "God"?"

Do you have any answer to that question?

If so, what is your answer and why?

(btw, I did not reply to most of the rest of Post #3 due to it consisting of unsupported claims (so difficult to address without going off on (a) tangent(s)) and because it is unknown at this point as to why/how the claims are tied in to the thread question.

[The Tanager]

The question of this thread topic is.
"Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument support the traditional Christian idea of "God"?"

Do you have any answer to that question?

If so, what is your answer and why?

(btw, I did not reply to most of the rest of Post #3 due to it consisting of unsupported claims (so difficult to address without going off on (a) tangent(s)) and because it is unknown at this point as to why/how the claims are tied in to the thread question.

1. If you think they are unsupported then point out exactly which ones and I'll rephrase the support I gave or support it further. This isn't going off on a tangent, but directly related to what you claimed.

2. If you don't understand how they connect to what you said, then ask me to clarify or clarify how I misunderstood you. If I understood you and you want to call this is a tangent, then the tangent was yours since I'm directly addressing the logic of what you said in your post.

3. I think the Kalam supports the Classical Theist idea of "God," which fits with more than just the traditional Christian idea. You summarized the reason why well in your initial post. Then you critiqued it and I’m responding to that as a way to get across both of our views and supports, if you will address the points.

[William]

The traditional Christian idea of "God" encompasses a set of core beliefs and attributes that have been foundational to Christian theology. While interpretations may vary among denominations, some common elements include:
1. Monotheism: Christianity is fundamentally monotheistic, affirming the belief in one God.
2. Omnipotence: God is considered all-powerful, having the ability to accomplish anything consistent with His nature.
3. Omniscience: God is believed to be all-knowing, possessing complete knowledge of past, present, and future.
4. Omnipresence: The traditional Christian concept includes the belief that God is present everywhere simultaneously.
5. Eternal Existence: God is considered eternal, existing without a beginning or end.
6. Immutability: God is seen as unchanging in His nature, character, and purpose.
7. Creator of the Universe: Christians traditionally believe that God is the creator of the universe and all that exists.
8. Trinitarian Nature: Many Christian denominations adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, understanding God as Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit.
These attributes collectively contribute to the understanding of God within traditional Christian theology. Different Christian denominations may emphasize certain aspects more than others, leading to some variations in the specific theological details of the traditional Christian idea of "God."

[The Tanager]

The Kalam directly gives us an eternal creator of the universe. The Kalam points to this cause being extremely powerful, but not necessarily omnipotent. Omnipotence is not ruled out at all and neither is God’s immutability in His nature. Simplicity points towards there being one ultimate cause versus multiple ones. And we don’t get omniscience, omnipresence, or the Trinity from the Kalam. But no one argues that the Kalam alone gives us the traditional Christian God either.

[William]

The Kalam directly gives us an eternal creator of the universe. The Kalam points to this cause being extremely powerful, but not necessarily omnipotent. Omnipotence is not ruled out at all and neither is God’s immutability in His nature. Simplicity points towards there being one ultimate cause versus multiple ones. And we don’t get omniscience, omnipresence, or the Trinity from the Kalam. But no one argues that the Kalam alone gives us the traditional Christian God either.

So your answer to the question is?