Kalam cosmological argument

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
1

So Steve suggests attending a lecture by one Dr Craig at UPs philosophy department next week on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I have never heard of this before, so I turned to good old reliable wiki for info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument[/url]
This website: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/ sets the argument out as follows:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists.
So stop me if I am wrong, or stupid, but (1) is a completely unsubstantiated statement. But even if we assume (1) to be true, I have absolutely no clue how to jump from (3) to (4). Even if we do assume that the universe has some reason to exist (which I don't) What does god have to do with it?
2

Here’s a refutation:
http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

3

That argument just boils down to Godditit.

We have no proof of what caused the original expansion of the universe. But it happened, so goditit. Also, what caused God? Shouldn’t we be worshipping whatever caused God? And what caused that caused God? And what caused the thing that caused the thing that caused god? My head hurts

I’m perfectly happy not knowing what caused the original expansion, even if there was one, and I’m willing to wait until the heat death of the universe to find proof what it was, instead of saying godditit.

4

and another:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/kalam-argument-against-god-39673.html

5

Is it then generally accepted within the scientific community that

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Some people I know would say about god that: “He’s just always been there” so for them the question of what caused god to exist is a non-starter. of course, if (1) is true and Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence, and ‘god has simply always been around’ then, logically, god has no beginning of his existence, hence, god has no cause to exist? :-\

6
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

This lime is more than just a little bit loaded. Since time is a property of the Universe and even relative to different points the idea of measuring the Universe on a time scale is complete bogus. A beginning implies that there was a time before where something didn’t exist, since there wasn’t time before the universe existed the idea of a beginning is like saying “what’s the color of love”.

We have no proof of what caused the original expansion of the universe.

I love it to see that there are actually people who get the whole big bang thing, time after time you hear arguments about how nothing can’t exploded, the “Bang” in the name misleads the masses, it is best explained as a rapid expansion of time and space. Anyway, most of you probably know this but wanted to point it out anyway.

7

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

Says who?

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Says who? All we currently know is that 14 billion years or so ago we had ourselves a singularity which expanded to what we have now.

(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

With two shaky premises any conclusion can be reached…

(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

Ok… wait! what? why?

(5) God exists.

wtf? Perhaps she does but not by this fucked up logic.

If God is argued to be eternal without a beginning it is special pleading to not allow the universe to be eternal (in some form or other) without a beginning.

Like all other arguments for the existence of God it fails magnificently. If such an entity exists she should be applauded for the skill at which she manage to hide from us. Only those who rely on faith in the first place can offer these stupid “arguments” as valid.

8

That is exactly my question. But I have no idea how this guy defines ‘cause’. And without such a definition we cannot give an example of things that exist without cause, and this is a problem because it makes the more logical argument (that the theory is bullshit) look weak.

;D haha giggle for the day… haha.

9

Wow man, you should publish this kind of stuff and participate in real life public debates to smack down these arguments. How about attending the UP philosophy department tommorow, perhaps fly through, I am sure the good folks at skeptic.za.org will chip in to help arrange for the tickets. Man, I’ll definately organize for transport for myself to see the smackdown.

10

I like the way you turn their own argument against them: If god does not have a beginning, it cannot exist!

I think this is a disingenious attempt to confuse people with the dual meaning of the word “cause”. It could refer to origin or purpose. (Afr. “oorsaak” vs. “doel”)

11

I think space is a rubber band…in three dimensions and it stretches and stretches (expansion) until it can’t anymore then it snaps back…contracting, contracting and when it reaches zero it snaps across again (don’t get in the way!) and expands and expands…it never had a beginning nor will it ever have an end…unless the rubber perishes! >:D Wow the mind boggles at the variations on this theme! ;D

12

Good posts so far, but Dr Craig takes Kalam a little further. One other thing Kalam says is that infinite regression cannot be possible because if something began “an infinity” ago we could not have reached today (because the “beginning” is “infinity” ago so we wouldn’t have reached today yet). This argument also “dis-proves” their “infinite God” theory but Dr Craig counters that “God” exists outside of our time-frame (which is relative to the universe and He’s outside that point of reference).

Kalam sets out a logical sequence starting with “All things have a cause” i.e. cause and effect means everything we know of is an effect, or was caused by a previous event. Kalam then says “Therefore the universe has a cause” but this is where the logical sequence is incorrect: statement 2 must be a sub-set of statement 1 for the logic to work. Kalam has turned it around i.e. statement 1 (all things) is a sub-set of statement 2 (the universe), perhaps Dr Craig is hoping nobody will notice the logical fallacy. (It’s like saying, “My horse is black, therefore all horses are black”)

Dr Craig says if the universe is an effect it also had a cause and that cause must be God. What Dr Craig has failed to do is prove that “God” is the only possible “causeless” entity. He has not made a list of other possibilities and eliminated them through Occam or some other means. He hammered Hitchins in a hugely publicized public debate, and Christians around the world maintain that Dr Craig is “unbeatable” in open debate, and has “proved” God’s existence. However, his argument still, as in all Christian “arguments”, boils down to faith. Another thing: how did Craig get from “God” to the personal “God of the Bible”? Only through his own personal experience and faith.

Here is a letter I received from Dan Barker (co-president Freedom From Religion Foundation USA, author of Godless and Losing Faith in Faith) regarding the upcoming meeting with Dr Craig (this was sent to me when I was going to be the one giving the counter-argument, but this task has since been given to another Prof at UP):

Steve,

Yeah, I heard about the Hitchens/Craig debate. Eddie Tabash told me that he extensively coached Hitchens for how to debate Craig, but then Hitchens went off on a lot of discursions and strayed from the point. His “loss” to Craig does not mean Craig’s arguments are good, only that Hitchens is not the best guy to debate Craig.

I sent Craig a copy of my book, at his request, which contains (as you know) my “Cosmological Kalamity” chapter . . . and I am still waiting to hear from Craig. His kalam argument is to easy to refute, it is incredible that your professor friend would find it persuasive.

If I only had one question to ask Craig, I would ask: “If the kalam is true that an actual infinity cannot exist in reality, then doesn’t that prove that an infinite God cannot exist in reality?”

Craig has been asked the question before, and he usually replies that the “infinity” of God is not a linear arithmetic infinity . . . but he doesn’t explain what this means, or why that different kind of “infinity” is exempt from the argument . . . or why this does not beg the question. He claims that God exists “outside of time,” but can’t explain what that means.

It seems more and more that Craig is appealing to personal experience. We can know God from direct experience of his presence, he says. So another good question to ask (if this comes up during the debate) is: “Since you agree with me that the human race has exhibited an immense propensity to believe in personal experiences that are plainly false, what makes YOU exempt? How do we know YOU are not equally deluded? Why is YOUR personal experience real while all the others are not?”

Another question: “Even if it is true that our observable universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, now that most scientists are convinced that our own universe is part of a larger multiverse, how do you know that the wider cosmos had a beginning? If God doesn’t need a beginning, then why does the cosmos?” (By the way, one of those scientists is Paul Davies who, years ago dismissed the possibility of a multiverse, but now has come around and is virtually one of the loudest proponents.)

Gotta run . . . in Detroit catching a plane to Virginia where I debate the Dean of Liberty Law School this afternoon . . .

Friend Dan

13

Well put.

14
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

I have some major problems with this statement. How can something be caused to exist? Surely, things either exist or they do not. Causes can effect other things that already exist by moving them about or changing them into different things, but if some thing does not exist to begin with then there is nothing there to effect.

15

Kalam/Dr Craig is either poorly informed or deliberately disingenuous. (Call me a cynic, but privately, I’d put my money on the latter, as with all godbot academics.) This little brain-trick appeals to a naïve intuitive sense that the sum of an infinite series must itself be infinite. For an ostensible philosopher, he is remarkably ill-informed on the mathematical resolutions of Zeno’s paradoxes. Without a rigid quantification of the progression of time (or space) intervals involved, it’s all just so much hand-waving and verbal prestidigitation.

To which the obvious reply would be, “So why not tone the claim down significantly by merely acknowledging that the potential for the universe’s existence as well as the potential means of its production have existed eternally outside its internal timeframe and were merely waiting for an opportune fluctuation of unknown character to manifest said potential? Why is it necessary to contrive something that is orders of magnitude more complex than required?” It’s ironic that Dr Craig should “eliminate” all competing hypotheses by use of Occam’s Razor but that’s the trouble with the god-squad: they unfailingly infer far more than the argument warrants. David Hume made this point some centuries ago. “God” is exactly that place at which cowards ran out of evidence, variously got tired of thinking.

'Luthon64

16

Yes, a tricky business, this “causation.” Not only what it means, but also its scope.

'Luthon64

17

I’ve worked out that this “metaphysical” way of proving shit is just the thing! Try this one:

In normal olde-skool geometry ( Euclid ), parallel lines never meet, even AT INFINITY.

In Riemann’s geometry parallel lines DO MEET AT INFINITY.

Now, in REALITY, there are things and shit you can properly describe using Euclid - pyramids, circles ‘n’ stuffs.

Also, in REALITY, matter makes space-time curve and you get circles and stuff that are really straight lines, lots of fun and all that.

So, whichever way you look at it, Mr Euclid OR Mr Riemann, to make it all work, INFINITY MUST exist in REALITY! Otherwise all these parallel lines would have no place to meet or not meet or diverge or whatever.

There! Disprove that!

PS s3c - Love is BLUE. The song says so. :wink:

18

Uhm, not necessarily. You might be thinking of Bolyai-Lobachevskian geometry. Pick a flavour of Riemannian geometry and you can work out exactly, relative to the scale of its metric tensor, where parallels meet (or never meet). And besides gravitational potential, there’s no energy term attached to the expansion or contraction of spacetime, meaning that spacetime, as far as we know, comes free of charge. Tell that to your estate agent, electrician and undertaker…

'Luthon64

19

Here’s a thought: First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

20

We need to be clear about a few things, not least of which is cretinists’ and IDiots’ inopportune abductions of the laws of thermodynamics, most usually the second one. First, those laws are statistical and apply to well-specified systems consisting of large collections of interacting constituents that are not too far removed from an equilibrant state. We have no good reason to suppose, one way or another, that the universe qualifies because to do so would require an ability to assess it, to measure and weigh it, from “outside” so to speak.

Second, at the subatomic level, thermodynamic laws are violated all the time: short-lived bursts of mass-energy (confined only by Heisenberg uncertainty) appear from and in “empty” space; particles escape energy wells that ordinary thermodynamics would call impossible; Hawking radiation depletes black holes; protons decay, and so on.

Third, the sum total energy content of the uni-/multiverse might be zero if we do a proper mass-energy balance, offsetting gravitational potential energy against mass-energy and (low-grade) heat. The basic idea is that of a type of inverse rubber band: the more you stretch it, the easier it becomes to stretch, which translates to a non-recoverable dissipation of energy (where does it go?). At its limit (and if spacetime is “free,” as suggested in an earlier post), there’s no particular level of positive or negative energy that can be meaningful because energy levels can only be gauged by their deviation from some essentially arbitrary datum.

Phew! Let me try to wrap that last point in a slightly more familiar idiom: if the inside of your house is at the same temperature as the air outside, it can make no difference to your comfort level if the doors and windows stand opened or closed.

'Luthon64