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 hoghead1]

Your closing comment seems a bit wishful thinking on your part. What I have learned, by the end of your present post and other as well, is that you don't like or have any respect for us theists and are in the business of casting aspersion on our character, which is an illegitimate move in modern-day theological dialogues. True, the media is full of all sorts of fools and charlatans spewing into the air waves all kinds of wild, unqualified opinions from wholly unqualified wanna-be experts. I have a long you-know-what list of sites to avoid, in that respect. First thing I do is look at the credentials and qualifications of the speaker. Craig is solid, in that regard. You may disagree with him and I may disagree with him, but that does not deny the fact he is a major scholar, not some idiotic wanna-be expert or con artist. Plus, he does have a rational argument. So question is: Is your argument any more rational, any more convincingg and better?

The universe is cyclic, you say, continually dies and then regenerates itself. Well, that sure seems a way of saying the universal is eternal. As such, that sure seems a claim that, in some real respect, the universe is God.

Passive, inert, dead matter just up and following regular patterns? That seems a bit far-fetched to me. Order, regularity, habit, all these are concepts that have no meaning apart for mentation.

[Willum]

[Replying to hoghead1]

Well, it is true, reasonable and observable.

Ask some specific question and I will walk you through it. All of the atoms in your body, by themselves, are inert. Only when orderly combined is there non-inert.

Respectfully,

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 274 by Willum]




[center]
A truth claim demands evidence in here[/center]

With the birth of the universe, however, it's very different. What set off the big bang?

The same things that set off the seasons, nuclear reactions, indeed everything. Why are you assuming the BB was in any way a special event, not driven by forces we understand?

Let's not pretend to know what we really don't, or we could be charged of believing things on faith.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I agree that we humans have a very limited window into the distant past and so our understanding of teh origin of teh universe is heavily based on speculation. That's why many scientists will tell you that we are not dealing with absolute truth based on absolute proof. We are dealing with degrees of probability of a certain theory being correct.

As a neo-classical theist, I try and avoid dogma. I don't want anything set in cement. I don't know of any arguments you can't wiggle out of if you try hard enough. Nevertheless, I believe that there are a number of arguments for God's existence, and that, taken together, they make a most impressive case. The God hypothesis has a much higher probability of being correct.

Also, pleas note that not all theists hold with the supernatural. There's a bit too much stereotyping of theists in these posts as all thinking alike. We don't, believe me. For example, I view God as supra-natural, not supernatural. There is a big difference. "Supernatural" means God works in a way wholly different from nature. "Supra-natural" means God is the chief exemplification of all metaphysical principles, not their negation, as per supernaturalism. Loosely put, what holds for creatures holds for God, but to the nth degree. God didn't merely ordain gravity, God is gravity.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 281 by Willum]

That is completely beside the point I was making in my previous post, however.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 283 by hoghead1]

I agree that we humans have a very limited window into the distant past and so our understanding of teh origin of teh universe is heavily based on speculation. That's why many scientists will tell you that we are not dealing with absolute truth based on absolute proof. We are dealing with degrees of probability of a certain theory being correct.

________________

CORRECTION:

Science does not discuss the "absolute truth" or the "absolute proof" of anything. Any scientist claiming such would be immediately rejected as a PSEUDO-SCIENTIST.

________________

[Willum]

[Replying to Blastcat]

But whatever reason is there to believe that we don't?
If the universe expanded from anything LIKE a point, the only way matter could exist is as bosons.
We know it at least as certainly as we know nuclear reactions fuel the Sun, don't we?

I don't think I am misleading myself, or anyone else, but I am open to receiving criticism.

Am I missing something?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 284 by hoghead1]

Welp, if it keeps you from examining your beliefs, I can see your objecting to the topic moving on...

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 285 by Blastcat]

Yes, of courses. That is just what I said, as can clearly be seen form the quote of mine you cited. So why the "correction"?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 286 by Willum]





[center]Skeptics demand evidence
Part One[/center]

But whatever reason is there to believe that we don't?

Evidence.
Or in this case.. the utter lack of it.

If the universe expanded from anything LIKE a point, the only way matter could exist is as bosons.

I have no reason to believe that the wonderful people at CERN didn't discover a rather spectacular kind of a boson particle.

I thought you were making a claim to know the origins of the universe, not a claim that bosons exist, and how they MIGHT have worked during, after, or before the BB.

We know it at least as certainly as we know nuclear reactions fuel the Sun, don't we?

I don't know enough about bosons.. ok, I know NOTHING at all about bosons except that they are very tiny particles.. and I'm not even sure about that. But I did hear the "Higgs boson" described as the "God" particle, so maybe bosons are particles. People got really excited about the Higgs.

I don't think I am misleading myself, or anyone else, but I am open to receiving criticism.

Am I missing something?

'Fraid so, and Blastcat calls it "My whole freaking point".

To which:

I stated that:

"Let's not pretend to know what we really don't, or we could be charged of believing things on faith"

Now, the question really is : Do we REALLY know what "set off" was meant by your correspondent?

He MIGHT have wanted to say something like this: "What came BEFORE the BB"?

In fact, he did rephrase the question exactly like that later:

"Was there anything there before the Big Bang?"

If that's what he really meant, then it would be no good to pretend to know what cosmologists admit they don't know. There are hypotheses about what set off the big bang, of course, one of which is Lawrence Krauss' "something from nothing" hypothesis which is getting a lot of attention these days. BUT even professor Krauss doesn't say that he KNOWS that this is TRUE.

String theory might account for the universe.. nobody knows if this hypothesis is true.
Many worlds theory might also account for it.. again, nobody knows.

My POINT was that "nobody really knows", so "let's not pretend".

You might require a bit of evidence, so in that spirit, I offer you the words of the inimitable Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA :

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

If you invoke a MYSTERY to explain the universe, that's the very same thing as the creationists who invoke their MYSTERY to explain the universe. And if you believe that you have the answer to the origin of the universe, then you do so on A FAITH.

Are you quite sure that you want to be accused of basing your belief on faith?

That was my point.. whew...
I rather liked my pared down, earlier version.

Don't hesitate to ask Blastcat anything you like.
It will be Blastcat's pleasure to answer anything he likes.