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 229 by rikuoamero]

That's more or less what I thought you were going to say. And I have to say, you do have a point. However, there are some qualifiers here that need to be brought into play. The question of what kind of universe we've got is a scientific question. And Craig has simply noted the fact that science affirms the universe has a beginning. However, as I have many times already pointed out, the question of God is not a scientific question. Science is wholly neutral on whether God does or does not exist.
Now, where I feel you have a stronger point is in your description of Craig's God. He seems to hold with classical theism, the traditional model or picture of God as wholly static, unmoved, uncaused in any way, shape or form. That view of God came from the import of Hellenic substance metaphysics and standards of perfection. The world of time and change is wholly inferior, unreal. The truly divine, the "really real," is something wholly simple and immutable. The Greeks enshrined and sanctified the immune and the immutable. For modern persons, that's a bit hard to swallow. The more we've studied reality, the more dynamic it appears. Aristotle's substance metaphysics is out the window. Time and change are all too real for us to dismiss. And the idea of God as Unmoved Mover, wholly immutable does not appeal to those of us who are neo-classical theologians, as it simply yields a cold, unresponsive, indifferent Deity. So I do affirm time and change as key dimensions of God's own being. I view God as supreme effect as well as cause. I view God as a social-relational being, arising out of his or her relationships with the universe, and therefore feel it is just as true to say that the universe causes God, as that God causes the world. I think the concept of a beginning is applicable to God, as I believe God begins anew each moment, just as each moment we are new selves. At the same time, I agree with Craig that God is eternal, whereas this, or any particular, universe isn't. I think God needs a universe in order to be complete, but that it doesn't have to be this particular one. I think God's creativity is eternal and that therefore God has never been without some sort of universe. Before this one, there was another, different one, and so on, ad infinitum. I am gong to stop here, however, because I don't want to go way off teh Op by a long digression into neo-classical theism. I am just trying to indicate that I feel Craig's classical model of God is a bit lopsided and dated, can be, and has been improved upon, in such as way as to affirm teh concept of "becoming" as applicable to God, which is something Craig omitted doing.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 230 by rikuoamero]

Well, as I just tried to explain, such religious claims as are made about the operations of the natural order. For example, fundamentalists have claimed and still do, that the universe is very young, at most 10,000 years old, and that all the species were created separately. Clearly, those claims are subject to scientific testing, have been tested, and found wanting. Fundamentalists still cling to them, nevertheless, but evolution has been embraced by more liberal theologians, such as myself. I mean, you have all this "creation-science" literature floating around, making all sorts of claims that scientists check out and generally find wanting. But that has nothing to do with the existence of God. All it tells us is that God did not create a young earth or the species separately--that is all.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 220 by hoghead1]

Einstein redefined causality in the early 1900's, but Hume does not need reconsideration.
Quantum sciences give us new insight into causal processes, but Hume is still good.

See what I mean?

[Blastcat]

I'm not quite sure I follow your problem here.


Just with all of the first premise, really.
And then the rest of the KCA.

I guess.. just absolutely all of it.
That's all.

When Craig talks about things having a beginning, he is simply saying that you and I, for example, did not always exist, so our existence began at a certain point in time.

I really have to question that assertion.

I don't think saying that "our existence began at a certain point in time" is any different AT ALL than saying "there was a cause for our existence at a certain point in time".

And putting it that way completely destroys the KCA.

We don't have to use the word "begins" at all to mean precisely the same thing.
So, why is it THERE?

I think one of the reasons is so that Craig can say "Since GOD didn't begin to exist...."

If Craig put it the other way, we would have to say that "God also has a cause to his existence". So, clever Craig REALLY needs to preserve the word "Begins" at all costs.










That red object you may be referring to over there didn't always exist, it came on the scene, into existence, at a certain point in time. This is common sense, a no-brainer, no?

No.
It's really quite a brainer to me.




If you are happy with an infinite regress of causal explanations, then Craig is definitely not your man.

Happy?

I wouldn't say that. Before Craig brought it up in the KCA, I never had a thought about it. And as far as I know, I still don't care about infinite regresses. One way OR the other.

Do you?

But I don't pretend to understand the mathematics and physics of infinite regresses, either.

How is the argument going to be convincing to a schmo like that?
I will need a LOT more information before I can even HOPE to make my mind up if his first premise makes any SENSE at all.

I need some DATA here... I read his books. His data seems to be speculation about time and causality that doesn't necessarily jive with modern physics very much. Einstein, for example, I've been told.

When I hear the words "Einstein" and "physics" and "cosmology", Craig takes a SECOND place, let me tell you.

A very distant second place, as a matter of fact. So YEAH, my red flag is up.
My skepticism is ENHANCED by Craig's first premise, not decreased.

Is anyone going to defend the premise with some HARD COLD FACTS about all of that physics stuff?

Are YOU?





But many find such a regress undesirable.

[/quote]

And I have NO reason why they do.
Do you?




God is the logical alternative to avoid such a regress.

[/quote]

That settles it for you, then.


What else would do so?

[/quote]

I have NO idea, I can assure you.

Apparently, Craig wants us to believe there isn't anything else that could but his "God".

It's one way or the other. If we are to believe Craig, there can be no more than those two possibilities. Right now, I'm not in the mood to believe Craig. I will want proof.

Then and only then will I believe Craig's conclusion to the KCA has any merit.

____________

Questions:

• 
  1. Could you tell us what's so WRONG with an infinite regress?
  
  2. Could you tell us why God is the only logical alternative?
  
  3. IS "God" the only logical alternative?
  
  4. What other alternatives has Craig eliminated?
  
  5.At what "time" did I "begin"?
  
  6. When precisely, did any object in the universe "begin" ?
  
  

____________

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 233 by Willum]

No, sorry, I don't. I can't make any real degree at all out of what you are saying.

[historia]

In effect, the Kalam argument claims that the baker (God) somehow creates cakes without any ingredients. Poof.

I don't see where the Kalam forbids a material cause.

No, strictly speaking you are correct.

However, if there were some material cause from which God made the universe, we now have to ask what caused this new material cause.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. That may well be the preference of kalam supporters. But, as noted in post 104, the kalam argument itself does not require creatio ex nihilo:

The univocal concept of 'cause' employed in premiss and conclusion alike is the concept of efficient causality, that is to say, something which produces or brings into being its effects. Whether such production involves transformation of previously existing materials or creation ex nihilo is completely incidental.

[Willum]

[Replying to hoghead1]

Well, then take my word for it: Hume can not be perceived as inarguably speaking about causality, or indeed: 400-2500 year old philosophies can not be taken as cannon in the face of new discoveries.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 236 by Willum]

Take your word for what? I'm sorry, but this posts makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Willum]

[Replying to hoghead1]

Would you trust a 18th century surgeon to operate on you? Even the very best surgeon of that time?
No, medicine has advanced since then.
It is the same with philosophy.

No doubt Hume is great. However, were he confronted with modern natural sciences, he would say other great things. He can not be relied on in the light of new discoveries.
He would have better understanding and take a more modern view.

[historia]

Craig proposes that God sans the universe was timeless, but that God entered into time at the creation of the universe. So today God is not in a timeless state.

Then you agree with me.

I think you mean to say William Lane Craig agrees with you.

God began to exist in time. He enters the realm of space-time, begins to exist in it.

It doesn't make sense to me to say that the creator of time itself comes into being as that creator enters time. Had God never created the universe (including time), God would still exist.

For this line of thought to work, he'd have to offer up examples of other things that we already know exist timelessly/sans universe, so that we can be sure that the notion of existing such is actually valid and sound.

Craig gives the example of abstract objects as things that exist timelessly/sans the universe.

for any entity e and time t, e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

Thanks. I must have missed that one. So let's run through it and see if any or all of those exclude God, shall we?

Sure.

i) God exists in time, we've already agreed on that

If by "we" you mean you and Craig, yes.

ii) given that t=0, the Big Bang, the moment of creation if you want to call it that is indeed a moment in time (I see no reason to exclude it), so no, God isn't excluded from this one

I'm not sure if this is critical to your argument, or anything, but I don't think this is accurate. From my point of view, t = 0 is not a moment in time, but rather on the border of time, in the same (exact) way that zero is not a positive number.

iii) Given that Craig says God enters the world at the creation of the universe, then God has always existed in time, there is no moment or point where God could have both been in the actual world and yet be timeless (the actual world includes the dimension of time)

It seems to me by "the actual world" Craig means a world that includes both timeless things (abstract objects, God) and things in space-time (matter, energy), so your insistence here that only temporal things exist in "the actual world" is inaccurate. He has this to say:

clause (iii) precludes God’s beginning to exist if He enters time at the moment of creation from a state of timelessness sans creation. This result is intuitive because God, if He exists timelessly sans creation, doesn’t begin to exist or come into being at the moment of creation!

Back to your post:

iv) Mentioning tensed fact seems to me to give the possibility that God does not in fact exist
"Tensed facts only exist relatively by definition: a tensed fact is relative to the temporal moment as experienced by the specific observer -- as the momentary experience changes, so may the accuracy of the tensed fact. Further, a tensed fact (such as "it is Wednesday") may or may not be "true" for a separate observer (such as someone on the other side of the world)."
http://www.godcontention.org/christian/ ... nsed-facts
I see relative there, so no...not objective? I see that a tensed fact is only relative as experienced by the specific observer. The link I gave there, as given by a Christian, defeats itself by saying that God doesn't experience tensed facts personally. I find that a big problem because I read what Craig has to say on the subject
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscie ... e-eternity
and he makes the same mistake - he asserts, as an axiom
"Since (2) is essential to theism "
(2) meaning God is omniscient
He offers no argument or evidence to prove that God actually knows everything and the problem of unknown unknowns shows that in my eyes no being can ever actually know everything or be shown to know everything.
Even though Craig and others say tensed facts can only be known by personal observers, they say God knows them too because...he magically knows all automatically...he just does.

While that was an interesting excursion, it doesn't seem germane to the topic at hand.