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?

_____________

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Blastcat]

As usual (and as you point out) it all comes down to definitions. I would like to zone in on just one for now. What does 'exist' mean in the context of P1?

Does it mean:

1) when one things transforms into something new that new thing now exists?

OR

2) something came out of nothing and now exists?

Further to this, if we say 'begin to exist' that implies time. If there was originally nothing, that means there was no time, so how does something begin when there is no time?

I think the really important question though is do you use superman shampoo?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Blastcat]

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.

Exactly. It's the hidden extra sentence in that premise that ultimately is a mask for the conclusion that the theist hopes to achieve, which I've been told you're not supposed to do!

-What begins to exist has a cause.
-Okay...so things that don't begin to exist don't have causes, right?
-Yeah!
-So give me an example of something that doesn't begin to exist
-Only one thing and one thing only. God.

So from where I'm standing, the conclusion that they reach (that God is an uncaused cause) is right there in Premise 1, and thus it's an invalid logical argument.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 3 by rikuoamero]

There are, however, two points you need to bear in mind here. One is that the argument for God as first cause is striving to avoid an infinite regress, whereby you would have to inquire into what caused God, then what causes the cause that caused God, and so on, ad infinitum. The other is that the argument presupposes the classical model of God, whereby God is defined as a statically complete perfection, an actus purus, or the actualization of all perfection, wholly immutable and independent. Given those two premises, the Kalaam argument does work. However, there are other models of God, a neo-classical model, for example. But I won't go into that now, as it might get the discussion too far off the OP.

[Goat]

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?

_____________

1) There is something known as 'virtual particles' which apparently have no cause. THey can 'come into existence' .. and actually keep an existence if formed hear the event horizion of a black hole... so 1 is an assumption that can not be shown to be true.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 3 by rikuoamero]

There are, however, two points you need to bear in mind here. One is that the argument for God as first cause is striving to avoid an infinite regress, whereby you would have to inquire into what caused God, then what causes the cause that caused God, and so on, ad infinitum. The other is that the argument presupposes the classical model of God, whereby God is defined as a statically complete perfection, an actus purus, or the actualization of all perfection, wholly immutable and independent. Given those two premises, the Kalaam argument does work. However, there are other models of God, a neo-classical model, for example. But I won't go into that now, as it might get the discussion too far off the OP.

Yes, and I think that is what riku is pointing out (and has been hashed to death in a previous thread). If you presuppose God, then shockingly you conclude with God.

I'm amazed that anyone would base their faith on this word salad that is the KCA.

If your premises presuppose God exists, then why even bother trying to make a logical argument? Just say "I believe in God" and be done with it. Trying to pull a fast one by using a loaded argument may fool those not paying attention, but in the end it's using deceit. Doesn't seem very Christian like.

I'm currently watching Penn and Teller "Fool us" on Netflix. The KCA reminds me of magic. It's an illusion designed to fool the audience, but quickly falls apart when you learn that the rabbit was in the magicians coat the whole time.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 5 by Goat]

Modern science has moved away from Hellenic substance philosophy, where the universe consisted of self-enclosed, independent substances, wholly unrelated to one another. Modern science understands the universe as more like an organism than anything else. No part or process goes on wholly independently of any others. It is all interrelated. In that sense, everything does have a cause. At the same time, science recognized indeterminacy, unpredictability, which I take as testimony to freedom. In that sense, there is self-causality. Both freedom and determinism are in play.

While I am a theist, I don't hold with Craig's model of God. I am a neo-classical theist and so I posit change and contingency as dimensions of God. I see God and the universe as mutually interdependent. It is as true to say that God causes the world, as that the world causes God. God requires the word as God's process of self-actualization and attainment ofconsciousness. The world requires God as its transcendental source of creative potentiality.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 6 by benchwarmer]

Yes, but see, that isn't quite fair to Craig or those of us theists who may disagree with hem. It could also be said that if you deny God, then shockingly you end up with a conclusion denying God. See what I mean? Smear mashed potatoes on one side of teh equation and you have to smear mashed potatoes on the other. Anyhow, what Craig is trying to do is to avoid an infinite regress that he and others find undesirable. Of course, you can always argue that not all forms of infinite regress are undesirable, that at some point, everyone admits to some sort of infinite regress. But OK, some may be more acceptable, some less desirable, and he finds an infinite regress of causes to be one of the latter. The problem I as a theist have with him is that he fails to show why avoiding the regress would yield anything near a picture of God I might find desirable. Just saying God is the first cause and leaving it go at that says nothing about the nature of God. All his argument says is that there is a first cause. OK, but what is it like? Maybe it, i.e., God, is just a collection of abstract, impersonal principles, cold, aloof, depersonalizing. All he has argued for is some sort of characterless, patternless transcendental source. So, on my end of it, he really demonstrated anything. If he is presupposing some sort of God, at least a God available for religious purposes, he sure doesn't get it to come out at the end.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by hoghead1]

OK, but what is it like? Maybe it, i.e., God, is just a collection of abstract, impersonal principles, cold, aloof, depersonalizing. All he has argued for is some sort of characterless, patternless transcendental source.

Which cannot be the God of the Bible, whether one takes the bloodthirsty warmonger of the Old Testament or the 'love thy neighbour' of the New. The Biblical god has character, traits, personality, wants, desires and things he doesn't like.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 9 by rikuoamero]

Yes, that is the problem many skeptics and theists as well, including myself, have had with the first-cause argument since day one. It does not necessarily grant a concept of God available for religious purposes, the concept of God as a personal being. And it is but one argument. Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000), who was quite influential on my thinking, has been called one of the most God-intoxicated philosophers of all times. Now, Hartshorne himself pointed out there is no argument you can't wiggle out of if you don't try hard enough. He favored a global approach, where you put together a number of arguments for God, rather than putting your eggs all into one basket and relying on just one. And I agree that if that is what you do, you can come up with a most impressive case. But, as I say, it takes more than just one argument. And it also takes some considerable rethinking and redefining of our basic model of God. Craig relies largely on the doctrine of perfection from classical theism, purely Hellenic standards of perfection, which enshrine the immune and the immutable. Neo-classical thinkers, such as myself, find this a most lopsided view of supreme perfection that does not survive much reality testing. Just as an example: Craig arbitrarily assumes that God is a statically complete perfection, to whom, then, nothing can be added, the universe can contribute nothing to God, who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. Yet Craig assumes God created the world. Well, if God could be as happy, whole, and complete without the universe as with it, then why did he bother to create it? It just doesn't make any sense. His definition of God wipes out the idea of God even thinking of creating, day one.