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?

_____________

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 256 by Blastcat]

Dating back to at least Hume, if not earlier, it has been recognized that causality is not a sensory experience. That point still holds today. We have no sensory awareness of causality. Hence, causality is an extra-scientific concept, a philosophical presupposition underlying science, but not something science can verify.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 255 by Willum]

Not unless you demonstrated that causality is a sensory reality, which is going to be impossible to so, since it isn't. Sorry.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 259 by hoghead1]

The consensus of scientific opinion favors the Bib Bang, which is a claim that the universe had a beginning.

This is a misrepresentation made by media.
Though matter as we know it "began" with the BB, matter as we are less familiar with, did not begin then.

This odd state of matter, as massive as the universe, but composed of queer little atoms called bosons, transformed from bosons, to neutrons, to matter as we know it: Hydrogen.

This is what the consensus is, not an instant and spontaneous violation of the conservation of matter and energy.

If you ask any scientist, or indeed anyone with a science based education if conservation laws were created by the BB, they will say 'no.'

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 259 by hoghead1]


[center]The scientific proofs of "God"
Part Two: No evidence provided[/center]

The consensus of scientific opinion favors the Bib Bang, which is a claim that the universe had a beginning.

Hmmm

You might be interested in what the theory is actually about.

There are all kinds of "creation-science" apologists, but I hold "creation-science" is bogus science and worse theology.

Great.
There's hope for some theists, then.

Unfortunately, most Christians and Muslims think that creation is the epitome of scientific knowledge.

Craig never claimed to be a scientist.

Good for him then.
I'm quite sure that he is NOT.

He isn't even a science teacher.
He has opinions.

And we KNOW how much that he is biased.

The kalam argument was formed way before science came along.

Well, at least before the BBT.
How we define "science" is a bit subjective.

I think MODERN science didn't exist then.

If and when he cites science, it is because modern science supports his the traditional notion that the universe had a beginning.

Yeah, I get that he claims that.
Craig likes to make a lot of claims.

We are trying to find out if any of his claims have any MERIT.

Craig also his issues with Einstein over the relativity of time and whether there might be an absolute dimension as well.

I wouldn't doubt that Craig has MANY "issues" with world renowned physicists.

Well, when it comes to science.... I'll go with Einstein right now.. is that ok?
And of course, Craig has the right to his opinions.

As non-scientific as they might be.

So, too, do other philosophers, such as Hartshorne, Griffith, etc.

Are all of these philosophers also scientists?
I'll go with what the actual scientists are thinking about science, thanks.

Others are free to have opinions, of course.

Actually, Einstein was skeptical about his theory of time, as Einstein the philosopher believed that time did not exist, was an illusion. However, that is not germane to the kalam.

You just throw that claim at us and we are supposed to just accept it as true?
How about some supporting EVIDENCE?

I think that the FACT is.. that nobody really knows everything about TIME.
Ok?

Not even Dr. Craig, and not even Einstein or Hawking.
So, how about we don't pretend?

The question of God is definitely not an empirical question.

Wow.. semantics.
How about you create a thread about this astounding claim? I'm sure that at least some people might have an interest in debating that one. Lets just say I'm SKEPTICAL of that claim.

Astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology will never settle it.

How about you provide evidence that you have the ability to know the future?

The scientist's job is to tell us which of the possible universes we've got, and that's it.

Thanks, but you will have to do more than offer your opinion about what scientists' JOBS are. Thanks for your attempted lesson about "Science 101". I'm not sure it's any good. I am skeptical of your claimed knowledge of what science IS, my friend.

This is neutral as to the question of God's existence.

Yes, I hear this often.
It's a claim.

Probably, just a religiously motivated opinion.
No evidence, though.

Bring it if you have it.

'I think the best scientists know this, and know that when and if they speak about God, they have stepped out of their role as scientist and into the courts of theology and philosophy. If they have found a different world, that would have shown that God has made a different world--that is all. Their scientific work has nothing to do with whether God exists, but concerns only what he has done.

Gee, that almost looks like a quote from a world renowned physicist.

You think?

Ok, you don't need to prove that you think.
You MAY want to provide evidence that what you think is true, though.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 262 by Willum]

The whole of matter, however, compressed down into the singularity, is not a universe. That is my point, and also the point made by scientists, who do speak of the universe as having a beginning. The mere fact that matter preexisted does not mean the universe did.

[Willum]

[Replying to hoghead1]

Yes, and that singularity was made up of bosons... their mass is equal to the mass of the universe... bosons became neutrons, neutrons matter as we know it.
and I think you are up to speed.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

When Besso, a mathematician and good friend of Einstein died, Einstein wrote a famous letter to his family, saying, "...for us physicists believe that the separation between the past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." Other scientists who share a similar view are Feymann, in his Summary of Histories approach, and Hawking, in his book "Everything Forever." This is called the block theory of time and is very ancient. Accordingly, the past, present, and future al coexist at once, like frames of film on a film strip. It's just a question of what frame you are looking at. Regardless of what particular frame you are looking at, all the others exist at that time, though you see only one. Moving into the future, for example, is like walking toward a hotel. At first you don't see it, and when you do arrive, you realize it existed all the time.

Although you seem to have little respect for Craig, he is still a major, recognized scholar and has something to contribute to the discussion. Claiming he is all biased is too quick and easy of a write-off.

Empiricism, science, is based on the philosophy that all knowledge comes through the senses, and that the only meaningful statements are statements that can be verified buy direct sensory observation. Both assumptions are questionable, to start with.

Thus, for God to be collapsed into a purely scientific question, you would have to assume that God can and must be be observed by the senses, which is highly questionable. And you would have to come up with an agreed-upon definition of what specific sensory observations would verify God, which no one has yet to come up with. And then you would have to come up with instruments to do the observing. Well, what exactly would those be? Nobody has ever come up with such instruments.

Consider creation, for a moment. A traditional belief was that God created the universe in six days back in, say 4004 BC. Science comes along and says well, with the best of our instruments, the universe is much older than that. Conclusion: God didn't create the universe in 4004 BC, didn't work that way. That's it. There is nothing here in the nature of a disproof or proof for God. Modern science says the universe began with a Bib Bang. Conclusion: Given that, nothing can be said one way or the other about God's existence. All that can be said is that God works via the big bang. Science can say only that there was a big bang, not what caused it or what , if anything, is beyond it or before it. Those speculations belong discussed in the courts of theology and philosophy.

"Most Christians and Muslims believe that creation is the epitome of science"? What on earth does that mean and where is your evidence?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 265 by Willum]

Yes, and that very clearly tells me, and members of he scientific community, the universe has a beginning.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 267 by hoghead1]

So does an iceberg, but it doesn't need a creator.
Just as a universe, or all the atoms that compose it, don't need a creator.
Good grief!

Craig, he is still a major, recognized scholar and has something to contribute to the discussion. Claiming he is all biased is too quick and easy of a write-off.

Craig is either a charlatan or fool. Deliberately misleading folks or ignoring the conservation laws.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 268 by Willum]

Look, you certainly don't have to agree with Craig if you don't want to. But calling him a fool, etc., is too much cheap-shot taking and too unreasonable, especially as you have yet to substantiate your case that his position is weak.

And yes, an ice berg does have a creator. it certainly does not come out of thin air. Something created it, brought it about.