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?
_____________
