Kalam Cosmological Argument, Premise One

[Blastcat]

Hi gang !

Once again, while showering, something came to mind...

William Lane Craig is famous for his re-working of the old Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God. Here it is in a nut-shell for those who might need a bit of a refresher. Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:

______________

The argument:

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
P2. The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

C1. The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:

P3. The universe has a cause;
P4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

C. An uncased, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

____________

This thread wants to take a good look at P1. that is, the very first premise of the argument that states :"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

As in all arguments, if we accept that this premise is true, we move on to the next premise, and so on, to it's conclusion that must follow from one to the next without any gaps.

Now, if we cannot demonstrate that a premise in the argument is TRUE, then the argument may be VALID, but not sound. The conclusion we get from an argument is just as weak as it's weakest link, so to speak.

So, what about the first premise?

Is it TRUE that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"?

I am a skeptic at heart, so I am suspicious about that.


Let me give some preliminary reasons, that I got while showering with my Spiderman "Spidey Sense" Soft Soap ®... ( very refreshing ) :


1. Right off the bat, I would have my skeptical spidey sense tingling by the sentence itself. It seems to imply that some things begin to exist, and that others may not begin to exist. I'm not too sure what that means... What does it MEAN to say that something has a "beginning" to it's existence? What does it MEAN to say that not all things begin to exist? Which kinds of things begin to exist, and which kinds of things don't begin to exist? Now, we need rigorous definitions, don't we? Anyone has those? I sure don't. The more that I look, the more confused I get.

2. It doesn't say what hasn't begun to exist. But I suspect that the case is very well chosen. Some people might protest that there is a difference between saying that something doesn't begin to exist and saying that something hasn't yet begun to exist. We are now having to make a distinction that is very subtly grammatical.

3. Of course, if something has not yet begun to exist, it cannot yet exist. But if we are trying to prove that something has caused the universe, it at least has to exist in some way. Otherwise, the argument... is weird.

4. The Kalam is very old.. It wasn't always phrased the way that WLC does. In fact, WLC has introduced the word "begins to" ... because before we could ask "Who caused God?". So, it seems that Craig wants to save the argument by replacing "exists" by "begins to exist". If only GOD doesn't "begin to exist", then I see special pleading going on.

5. Craig says this about the nature of "God's" infinity:

"God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on."

In other words, when Craig uses the term "infinite" to refer to a being who doesn't begin, he isn't talking about numbers, but characteristics. I "began to exist" in the middle 50's. See how that's a number? I could have started counting the years of my "existence" at 0, or 1, or some other NUMBER, but it's weird to think that we don't COUNT things without numbers.. but if there are no NUMBERS, to me, it's weird to say that something began or didn't begin. Time is a series of numbers, one after another.. seconds, minutes, days, weeks, months, years.. eons.. we count those, because they are NUMBERED. If it can't be counted, I don't know how it can be called "time", and if it isn't "time" we are talking about.. causation seems a bit weird to be talking about.. and to begin.. implies "time"... so again.. very weird.

So, when I read "Whatever BEGINS to exist.." I think "What on earth is Craig talking about"? A quality or a measurable instance of time? If the word BEGINS is an instance of time that is measurable for everything ELSE but "God", this is special pleading once again.

6. The second part.. "A CAUSE" ... this is the really REALLY weird part.. and I will keep it short. You see, Craig doesn't like infinite regresses.. so, the universe can't be it's own cause due to an infinite regress.. what cause the cause of the cause.. and so on.. Physical matter NOT of this universe can't be the cause because.. what's the cause of THAT.. and so on.. more infinite regress. The very ODD thing about Craig's solution, "God", is that it is eternal in the past.. In other words, it seems to "cause the cause of the cause of the cause.. " in an infinite regress. To me, and this is just preliminary thinking, he solves one infinity.. "Cause" with another infinity "God".


Just some thoughts.. I have my doubts about the first premise.

_____________

So, here are the questions for debate:


1. Is it true that things that have a beginning have a cause?
2. How something hasn't begun to exist, continue to exist?

_____________

[Willum]

[Replying to post 50 by Blastcat]

Perhaps for once, I can be a reasonable arbitrator here:

Ok, since God is eternal, other things can be eternal.

and

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

A single atom, as a hydrogen atom, a proton, higher atomic weight atoms or a boson is theoretically and observably immortal. It may be transformed between these different kinds of atoms, but it is still the same particle.

So, there are things in reality that do not "begin to exist." In fact, everything.

In order for there to be no paradox, the only assumption anyone is required to make is that the universe is a closed universe.

This is not an unreasonable assumption to make, given that it solves every other problem, without the need for additional frankly impossible assumptions, ad nauseum.

[FarWanderer]

So, there are things in reality that do not "begin to exist." In fact, everything.

How about your mind? Did it ever begin to exist?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 50 by Blastcat]

Wow! 22 questions. That's an awful lot to get through. I'll do the best I can. Any one question would require a whole post and more time than I have. So i'll just be winging it here.

In short, classical theism argued, as I mentioned in a previous post, that God is without body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, wholly independent of creation. Neo-classical theism argues that God and the universe are mutually interdependent. God grows as the universe goes. Hence, neo-classical theism stresses contingent (dependent), dynamic (changing) aspects of God, which classical theism ruled out.

Some infinite regresses are tolerable, some not. Craig actually does admit an infinite regress, as he assumes God eternally exists. As I said, I have no trouble with an infinite regress of universes, as I believe God is eternally creative and self-actualized.

I am saying that God cannot fully exist without a universe.

A number of arguments or proofs for God's existence have been offered by neo-classical theists, especially Hartshorne. There is no time to run through them all here. At present, and as I have noted in previous posts, my argument is that God is necessary to explain where is the creative potentiality for the universe. One way to think of it is this: Where do novel ideas come from? They don't just come out of nowhere. They can't be things just generated by us. There would be no genuine novelty, just the same old, same old, same old wine, only in new bottles, a mere rearrangement of the past. But genuinely novels ideas have to come from somewhere, some entity, some transcendental imagination that has material outside the box, so to speak, that we are in, and that means God.

In process, mind and matter re seen as one reality, not two separate ones. One reason is that the traditional mind-body or spirit matter dualism never explained how mind and matter can interact. Another reason is that there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the living and the nonliving. What's at the top of the evolutionary scale is also the case at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser degree. We've been so busy extending mechanical principle up the scale, to explain things, that we have forgotten it is only fair to extend psychological principles down the scale. That's what I mean when I say even atoms have tiny minds. And not that I did not say they are conscious, however. And if there are minds present, there are also choices.

Not all experience need be conscious, sensory experience. Modern psychology well recognized that consciousness is just the tip of the ice berg, that most of our mental life is unconscious or subconscious. Yes, we do make unconscious decisions. The brain is continuous with the body, and the body with the rest of the world. Hence, it would be a mistake to assume all our avenues of experience are purely sensory. For example, our experience of causality is nonsensory, purely affective. We do not se the pouf of air make the eye blink, but we do feel it make us blink. Many very simple organisms exist hat have little or no real sensory apparatus. Our conscious, sensory experience is the end product of billions of tiny microscopic non-sensory events that take place in our body and brain. Our most primal or basic level of experience is non-sensory feeling.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 52 by FarWanderer]

My mind is made up of atoms, and the communication between them, those atoms always existed.

See the difference?
Matter can be transformed, but not created or destroyed.
Transformed from food, to protein to brain and then mind. But no "beginning to exist."

[Cephus]

The whole proposition fails because the uncaused personal creator has not been demonstrated to actually exist. We know of nothing that is not caused. Simply asserting that something exists and then defining it as a personal creator doesn't mean that it actually exists.

The whole of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on wishful thinking and invention.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Cephus]

Yes, that is true and has been acknowledged since day one, at least since back in the days of Aquinas. The argument from first causes simply posits a Creator. It says nothing about what that Creator is like. In and of itself, the argument does not show a personal Creator, just a Creator. Aristotle, for example, used the first-cause argument and then argued that God is the Unmoved Mover, wholly indifferent and aloof from creation, no interest in it whatsoever, hardly a personal Creator. Another set of arguments I required to demonstrate a personal Creator.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Cephus]

It should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur.

At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents
involved in the creation.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 54 by Willum]




[center]
There are concepts that may be true.. but just don't SEEM that way... "no beginnings" sure seems like one of those.[/center]
Part One

My mind is made up of atoms, and the communication between them, those atoms always existed.

See the difference?
Matter can be transformed, but not created or destroyed.
Transformed from food, to protein to brain and then mind. But no "beginning to exist."

Sheesh.
I can usually find a fault in people's reasoning.

I HATE it when I can't.
That really, really bugs me !!

But there MUST be a beginning if Craig got a PHD for it... mustn't there be?
I have to admit that the IDEA of "no beginning" seems almost TOO strange for my head. I mean, if anything is counter-intuitive, THAT idea is !!

Question:

If there is no beginning to things.. does that imply the dreaded infinite regress that Craig needs to avoid?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 55 by Cephus]



[center]Let's just stick to P1 for now
Part One[/center]

The whole proposition fails because the uncaused personal creator has not been demonstrated to actually exist.

We are focusing right now on the first premise only.
I think that you are talking right now about the conclusion to the KCA.

We know of nothing that is not caused.

In a way, that's what Craig is talking about.. Everything that begins has a cause. Craig uses that language quite specifically. It used to be about everything needing a cause.. now, Clever Craig changed the first premise to everything that BEGINS has a cause.. I think you are right.. but you would have to explain why Craig uses that "Begins" word... I think you are jumping ahead in your criticism.

Simply asserting that something exists and then defining it as a personal creator doesn't mean that it actually exists.

That may be true.. but the first premise doesn't talk about a creator of any kind... I think that comes later in the argument.

The whole of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on wishful thinking and invention.

That's what we are trying to find out.
I agree with you, but I want more than opinions. I want this argument to be demolished or supported by REASONS and FACTS.

I would like to see how the very first premise can be said to be true or even possibly true.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 57 by alexxcJRO]



[center]Premise one of the KCA:
Let's Invite Craig Campaign
Part One[/center]

It should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur.

At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents
involved in the creation.

We are getting ahead of ourselves by discussing the conclusion...
I don't agree with your assessment that shows that some PERSONAL agent created the universe. I think that P4 represents a non-sequitur that introduces a personal agent... from a cause.. Cause = personal agent?

No... that's a non-sequitur right there.
But, I would prefer to keep our discussion in here to the P1

As soon as this winds down, I will gladly create a thread so that we can talk about the NEXT premise.

I would love to go through each and every premise of this famous argument.
I think it deserves a lot of our attention.

Maybe Craig himself will make an appearance !!!
How about someone in here invite the guy.

Seems like the least we can do.
To be civil.