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?

_____________

[JLB32168]

JLB, does an actual infinity exist in reality?

I have to defer to the scientists who say it does.

Has God become part of/interacted with reality?

Isn’t that the purpose for this board – debating that question?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 31 by JLB32168]

I have to defer to the scientists who say it does.

Then you're contradicting Craig's Kalam argument, which does not allow for an infinity to exist in reality.

Isn’t that the purpose for this board – debating that question?

Please answer the question - yes or no. When you do, try and think of how both answers cause Kalam to defeat itself. If you do not understand, tell me and I will explain.

[JLB32168]

Then you're contradicting Craig's Kalam argument, which does not allow for an infinity to exist in reality.

I don’t see that conclusion from his argument. Can you elaborate? Then I can answer your second question.

[rikuoamero]

Then you're contradicting Craig's Kalam argument, which does not allow for an infinity to exist in reality.

I don’t see that conclusion from his argument. Can you elaborate? Then I can answer your second question.

Craig, whenever he discusses Kalam, rejects the notion of an infinity existing within reality.
From wikipedia

In defending the argument, Craig has argued against the possibility of the existence of actual infinities, tracing the idea to 11th-century philosopher Al-Ghazali.

Eric Sotnak here
http://infidels.org/library/modern/eric ... kalam.html
says

(KS1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(KS2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(KS3) An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
(KS4) If an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist, then the universe began to exist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(K2) The universe began to exist.

Premise (KS1) claims that an actual infinite is impossible. Presumably, it makes no difference whether what is proposed as actually infinite is a magnitude, a collection, a subdivision[3], or a series of events; all of these we are to consider impossible.

and from here, on Craig's own website (thus, presumably, only there under Craig's direction)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/professo ... l-argument

The kalam argument is simply the old first cause cosmological argument based on impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of events. It may be schematized:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Craig says that actual infinites cannot exist, but does not define this term. He gives what he views as one example of an actual infinite, but does not go into detail as to what makes this an actual infinite versus something else.

In other discussions about God, I have been told that God is infinite, without limit, etc. If so...then this God cannot have ever become part of/incarnated into/interacted with our reality, as Kalam rejects that actual infinites exist.

UPDATE - For reader's understanding, in this thread I am not arguing against the possible existence of God. I am arguing against Kalam, I am showing why I believe it to be a bad argument.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 27 by hoghead1]



[center]
The potentially potential yet actual God that is everything there is, and more.
Part One[/center]

From anything I have seen so far in Craig, he definitely holds with classical theism and therefore with a passionless, immutable God.

This is Craig in his own words :

"It’s easy to give content to the word “God.� This word can be taken either as a common noun, so that one could speak of “a God,� or it can be used as a proper name like “George� or “Suzanne.� Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God� as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western philosophy and theology. Now the YouTube atheist might protest, “But how do you know God has those properties?� The question is misplaced. “God� has been stipulated to be the person, if any, referred to by that description. The real question is whether there is anything answering to that description, that is to say, does such a person exist? The whole burden of Swinburne’s natural theology is to present arguments that there is such a person. You can reject his arguments, but there’s no disputing the meaningfulness of his claim.

The best definition of God as a descriptive term is, I think, St. Anselm’s: the greatest conceivable being. As Anselm observed, if you could think of anything greater than God, then that would be God! The very idea of God is of a being than which there cannot be a greater."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defining ... z4Q6GUTH1w

Call that anything you like.

The whole notion of a passionless Deity comes from traditional or classical Christian dogma, not Deism. Many Christians may be surprised by that, but then again, many do not pay any attention to the major creeds, confessions , and writings of the church fathers. The description I gave of God as void of body, parts, parsons, immutable, independent, for example, is almost word-for-word from the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm argued that god is without compassion.

Well, it wouldn't take a lot to convince me that the Christian "God" is devoid of compassion.

The traditional Christian model of God came largely from the influx of Hellenic philosophy into the church, not Scripture. I can't emphasize that point enough. Scriptures attributes great emotion to God and also change, the latter in around 100 passages. However, the church swept these away, arguing they were mere figures of speech that had nothing to do with the actual reality of God., which is impassible and immutable.

If you say so.

The term "panentheism" (all in God) is preferred to "pantheism." The reason is that the latter term can mean God is just another name for the universe.

Right, pantheism is what I thought you meant.
Thanks for clarifying that.

You might be a "panentheist".
God is the universe, but somehow.. more.

I may have confused you here on a point, so let me clarify. When I spoke about the unconscious side of God, I said also that the potentials have to exist in some actuality.

I don't know what that means.. ALL potential states actually exist?
What an infinite amount of existence there is !!

I wonder how you got that info?

So I am positing the unconscious side as a kind actuality.

Yeah, ok.. whatever doesn't exist, exists. Whatever I can't even think CONSCIOUSLY of.. exists. I might be thinking unconsciously of "God", so therefore, it exists.

Of course, I might be thinking of every other god ever dreamed of and more, so all of them exist, too. Married bachelors might exist... at least POTENTIALLY...

Interesting idea.
It sounds incomprehensibly contradictory to me.

I am also positing a creative urge, a wish, a drive to self-actualize as a personality.

Oh, that urge, wish, drive exists TOO.. why not?
Anything you can posit exists.

Please wish for me a million bucks, will ya?
Wouldn't mind a potentially hot chick delivering the potentially big check, while you're at it.

So again, yes, you could think of the unconscious side of God as a kind of actuality. But it is certainly not a whole or complete account of God.

Yeah, I COULD actually think of "God" that way, but I don't.
If anything we can think of ( consciously or not ) can actually exist... but we just can't PROVE that it does... the hypothesis is useless to me.

What's the point of believing in something that I can't possibly know is true?
Waste of time, if you ask me.

Let me know if you ever do get some evidence.
Then... I'll take a look at it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 28 by alexxcJRO]

Here's a beautiful rebuttal of Dr. Craig's argument.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/co ... d_premise/

I've read it once, and will re-read it a few more times. I completely agree.. It's a fine example of a rebuttal. I would do well to imitate that kind of writing.

Not there quite YET.

I particularly liked this part concerning the first premise:

"What evidence does he have to prove that whatever begins to exist must have a cause ? In his opening case, he states :
[T]he premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its existence I think is so intuitively obvious that scarcely anybody could sincerely deny that it is false. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... mith1.html

He does support it, in his opening case and elsewhere, by using two arguments : our observation of the caused entities around us, and causality as a principle of human thought. Dr. Craig is no doubt aware, however, that to infer a necessary causality on a whole – the universe – on the basis of observation of such attribute in the parts – the existents around us – is a fallacy of composition."

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/co ... d_premise/

I had forgotten, I think about the fallacy of composition.
That's yet ANOTHER problem with the first premise that we could be discussing.

Thanks for your contribution.
I wonder how apologists rebut the rebuttal?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 35 by Blastcat]

I think you got a bit confused on some points I was making. I said that potentials do not exist on their own, in some vacuum. They always exist in some actuality. Everything has to be somewhere, and that means in some actuality. Think of potentials like creative, imaginative ideas. Ideas just don't exist on their own. They always exist in an imagination, a mind.

I don't know how you got me twisted around into claiming that anything you can unconsciously think of exists.

I also don't know how you got me twisted around into claiming that anything you wish for will happen. What I said was that there is a creative drive in God to self-create. That explains why God created the universe.

I thought I made it clear I am a "pan-en-theist," not a "pantheist." God includes the universe, is partially identifiable with the universe, but is also more than just the universe.

Based on what I have found Craig saying elsewhere and also here in the quote you submitted, I would say he falls into classical theism, given his stress on omnipotence and independence.

You can't just call it what you want or sue the term God any old way. Words have specific definitions. In our culture, the term "God" denotes the supreme being.

You may not have trouble with the Christian model of God lacking compassion, which it most certainly did traditionally, but many of the others of us do and for very good reason. Hence, we have neo-classical theism, which stresses God's empathy.

It's not a question of "if I say so." It's a question of what the creeds, confessions, and major fathers taught. And yes, they went heavily on Hellenic standards of perfection and therefore enshrined the immune and the immutable.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 37 by hoghead1]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
The potentially potential yet actual God that is everything there is, and more.
Part two: Incomprehensible contradictions.[/center]

I think you got a bit confused on some points I was making. I said that potentials do not exist on their own, in some vacuum. They always exist in some actuality.

I am actually very confused by many of your points. A lot of your reasoning is incomprehensibly contradictory to me. Something that only potentially exists doesn't actually exist in the present. You insist that it does "somewhere"...

Good luck demonstrating that hypothesis.

Here is how I use the word potential:

potential:

Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future:
‘a campaign to woo potential customers’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/potential

You see, the COMMON definition of "potential" implies that something does not YET exist. It's as if you use the word to mean that it does.

To you, it seems:

What does not exist = does exist.
And that equation represents a quite incomprehensible contradiction.

Everything has to be somewhere, and that means in some actuality.

No, "everything" DOESN'T have to be somewhere.. things that are merely potential, don't have to be anywhere at all.. because they don't exist.

You are conflating things that don't exist with things that do.
Things that do exist need to be somewhere and at some time.

Things that don't exist.. aren't anywhere YET, and may never be anywhere EVER.
And to say that even UNCONSCIOUS things exist, means that even things that we don't THINK of consciously exist.

The idea that you are reasoning very POORLY exist "somewhere".
Therefore, your poor reasoning exists.

We can "prove" anything at all with your reasoning.. and that, my dear friend, is useless. We could "prove" incomprehensible contradictions that way. And from where I sit, that's precisely what you are doing, right here and now, in actuality.

And POTENTIALLY.. you are a brilliant genius who is always correct, at the very same time. I dismiss incomprehensible contradictions like that.

You might as well be trying to prove to me that married bachelors exist "somewhere".
Well, they are words.

Good luck trying to prove that the concept represents something that actually exists.

Think of potentials like creative, imaginative ideas. Ideas just don't exist on their own. They always exist in an imagination, a mind.

You have asked me before to think of "potentials" that way. I still can't:

Conflating potential existence with creative idea doesn't make sense to me.
My thoughts don't exist before I think them.

So, no.
I can't think of "potentials" that way.

I don't know how you got me twisted around into claiming that anything you can unconsciously think of exists.

I was replying to this: "When I spoke about the unconscious side of God, I said also that the potentials have to exist in some actuality. "

I take that to mean that you are saying that what potentially exists has to exist, even our unconscious thoughts have to exist. I think the idea is incomprehensibly contradictory. You might as well be trying to prove that square circles exist.

What only potentially exists ACTUALLY exists?
What we wish for ACTUALLY exists?

Not always.
I'd say that most of time, it does NOT.

I also don't know how you got me twisted around into claiming that anything you wish for will happen.

This is how:

• 1. You say that what we wish for potentially exists.
  2. And you also say that what potentially exists, actually exists.
  3. Therefore, by 1 and 2, what we wish for actually exists.

And well... I can't agree at all with any of that.
Not 1 or 2, and not the conclusion, 3.

What I said was that there is a creative drive in God to self-create. That explains why God created the universe.

Yes, you have explained that you claim God can have a creative drive before he exists. I don't know how anything can have anything before it exists, including a "creative drive".

You might as well be saying that what doesn't exist, exists.
To me, that represents incomprehensible gibberish.

If you can't explain it better, I will have to simply reject the idea as it stands.

I thought I made it clear I am a "pan-en-theist," not a "pantheist." God includes the universe, is partially identifiable with the universe, but is also more than just the universe.

Thanks for the clarification.

You seem to believe that "God" is identical with the universe, but in some unexplained way, is also MORE than the universe. Again, this doesn't make sense to me. Your thinking defies set theory. IF "God" is the set of all things.. i.e. the "universe", it cannot be more than the set of all things. There is nothing MORE than the set of all things. Labeling the set of all things "God" does not mean that "God" is MORE than the set of all things.

Set theory isn't your friend, my friend. I suggest you try to make a Venn diagram of your panentheistic hypothesis.

Based on what I have found Craig saying elsewhere and also here in the quote you submitted, I would say he falls into classical theism, given his stress on omnipotence and independence.

I did say that you can call Craig's belief anything that you like. I don't know how your particular label adds anything to our discussion. He believes what he believes. I'd rather have Craig self-label HIMSELF.

I don't really care about how you want to label his belief. As he may POTENTIALLY not agree with your label, I'd rather ask Craig himself.

You can't just call it what you want or sue the term God any old way. Words have specific definitions. In our culture, the term "God" denotes the supreme being.

You are labeling Craig's beliefs, not anyone else.
You must be under the misapprehension that people define the word "God" the exact same way. I don't take it to be true, for example, that everyone defines "God" in a panentheistic way. How about you define "God" the way that you like, and allow the rest of us to define "God" the way that we like?

You may not have trouble with the Christian model of God lacking compassion, which it most certainly did traditionally, but many of the others of us do and for very good reason. Hence, we have neo-classical theism, which stresses God's empathy.

Some of us atheologians call that kind of thing "Cherry-picking" the Bible.
Ignore the bad parts, and stress the good parts if you like.

That kind of blindness to data ( confirmation bias, if you like ) isn't very convincing.

It's not a question of "if I say so." It's a question of what the creeds, confessions, and major fathers taught.

Then, it's a question of "They say so".
They can say anything that they like, it doesn't make it true.

And yes, they went heavily on Hellenic standards of perfection and therefore enshrined the immune and the immutable.

You keep using the word "immune".
I'm not sure that's what you actually intend.

People believe all sorts of things... I don't care what some ancient priests decreed.
I only care to believe things that can be demonstrates as true.

___________

Questions:

• 1. Speaking about "potentialities, you say that : "They always exist in some actuality. " How is that not saying "Potentialities always actually exist. " ?
  2. How can something that does not yet exist, actually exist?
  3. What do you mean by the phrase: "Actually exist"?
  4. What do you mean by the phrase: "Potentially exist"?
  5. If everything that potentially exists, exists somewhere, does that mean that contradictory concepts such as "married bachelor" actually exist?
  6. Does Vishnu and Santa Clause actually exist?
  7. Why should we take the "say so" of ancient priests as true?
  8. Do things have to exist in order to be able to do anything, or have anything including thoughts, wishes, and drives?
  9.How does a being have a creative drive to self-create BEFORE it exists?
  10.How does a being exist before it exists?
  11.You seem to believe that "God" is identical with the universe, but in some unexplained way, is also MORE than the universe. How can something be "more than" everything, or indeed, more than itself?
  12. Could you explain what you mean by the phrase: "immune and the immutable"

___________

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 38 by Blastcat]

Again, you have gotten confused on what I am saying. No problem. You are new to the material and it can be complicated. So I'll try and again clarify.

By "immune," I mean unaffected, absolutely indifferent and unmoved.

You got confused about what I mean when of speak of potentiality and actuality. Yes, potentials do exist, but they are potentials for actual things, not the actual things themselves. Before you bake a cake, the potential for baking this cake exists. But you can't eat a potential cake, you can eat only a real cake. The potential has to be actualized before you have the real thing.

I said that nothing comes out of nowhere. Since potentials exist, they must exist somewhere, in some actuality. So the potentials for the universe initially existed in God, in the divine imagination. I realize you are having trouble with this notion that potentials have to exist in something. The best I can do is refer you to my earlier point that potentials are basically creative ideas, and that ideas do not exist in a vacuum, they always exist in a mind.

I said that God, prior to any creation, exists as an unconscious imagination with a creative drive to self-actualize. Creation is God's own self-evolution or self-creation. I realize that self-creation may seem a kind of paradox, but it happens everyday. Consider the fact that we self-create, we decide what we are going to be.

I don't know here you came up with all this stuff about potentially married bachelors existing, etc. I am not talking anything remotely related to that.

You may not care how others have defined God. But I will guarantee you that others most certainly do. This is a key item in discussions on the existence of God. If, however, you are not at all interested, then others are simply going to assume that you are not really interested in the discussion and then irrelevant.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 39 by hoghead1]

P.S. I forgot to add this. God is more than just the world, just as I am more than just my body. I transcend my body. I am in charge. Also, there can be a big difference between my character and my body. My body may not reveal my character, my wishes and wants, etc., as when it doesn't cooperate or when I am sick, etc. So I am not synonomous with my body, though I am my body.