Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

[curiosityandthecat]

I wonder what everyone thinks of this argument for the existence of a creator. William Lane Craig developed his defense of this argument as "most likely to be a sound and persuasive proof for the existence of God" (p. 92).  I'll break it down into lists. The main argument has three steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

He claims the first premise is in no need of defense, so he simply passes that over. On to the second premise, "The universe began to exist." He argues this in the following way:

A1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
A2. A beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.
A3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Also,

B1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition.
B2. A collection formed of successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
B3. Therefore, a series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.

He also adds the "Argument Based on the Isotropic Expansion of the Universe" (meaning the universe expands in all directions simultaneously; that is, the universe looks the same in all directions). He then adds the "Argument Based on Thermodynamic Properties of the Universe" (this involves the second law of thermodynamics). He does this to prove that, "whether one adopts a re-contracting model, an ever-expanding model, or an oscillating model, thermodynamics implies that the universe has a beginning" (p. 107).

So, according to Lane, "From the first premise -- that 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' -- and the second premise -- that 'the universe began to exist' -- it follows logically that  'the universe has a cause'" (p. 107). He then goes on to explore the nature of this cause, and this is where we become interested. He proposes:

4. 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, from 3 and 4,

5. An uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

His reasoning is thus: "As the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans this universe."

So, what do we think? You buy it?

Craig, W. L.  (2002.)  The Kalam Cosmological Argument.  Philosophy of religion: a reader and guide.  New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers  University Press.

[Will]

I'm bothered by flawed axioms. Most axioms I come across are assumptions presented as fundamental truths.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause? Of course not. Cause is entirely subjective, thus whatever begins and is subjectively considered to have a cause still does not necessarily have an objective cause.

William Lane Craig is a Christian apologist and faux-intellectual. I wish I could debate every Christian apologist at once and take them all apart.

[Jolly Sapper]

Premise 2 doesn't work if I define the "universe" as space instead of the stuff that is trying to take up space.  Does anything need to actually create space?

If he supposes an ultimate "creator" then I don't see how he can hope to get anywhere with A1-3.  God should be able to begin and/or end things as many times as it wants.  So an infinite number of things could exist, if God exists to begin things but doesn't end them.

Maybe I'm not understanding what he was trying to mean with B1-3.  B-2 states, " A collection formed of successive addition cannot be actually infinite."  Which doesn't make sense to me as you can always add one to something.  B-2 makes less sense when you don't think of "events" as something physical, but as a label us conscious observers give to the things we can conceive of having happened or happening.  Events don't require a conscious observer to happen, and I would add that things not happening can also be considered an event which means that its possible events could be infinite.  Which blows his Premises about things not being infinite out of the water.

If you add 1 to any number you get another number that you can add 1 to, with nothing to stop this process from repeating infinitely.  "Events" are the same.  Something happens, and then something else happens.  Therefore two things happened in the past, then something else happens.  Therefore three things happened... so it is possible to add another event to the list of events that have already occurred.

I haven't the faintest idea where Premise 4 comes from, so I'm left scratching my head.  It just sorta pops up outta the blue.  There's nothing that really supports Premise 4 and without Premise 4, his Conclusion is not based on much of anything.

[McQ]

He's full of it. Short answer.

Where he comes up with some of these, in particular #4, is beyond my understanding. He's using invalid assumptions for his points. He's using a philosophical basis for causality, and Will has correctly pointed out the absurdity of #1.

[NathanielFisher]

Links:

"Thanks for the response.

This is all way above my head, but it's great to see that there is a counter on the Evangelical side.

I'm trying to learn it all.

EDIT:




Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey
 Stenger is not a philosopher, so his reasoning is not bad for a physicist, but some physicists are notoriously naive when it comes to cosmogony (versus cosmology in which they flourish). Let's take a step by step look at that argument you sent.


Stenger is professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado and a professor of physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Lane Craig
First, though, in answer to your question, the standard Big Bang model includes an initial singularity.


"Hawkins has repudiated his own earlier proof. In his best seller A Brief History of Time, he avers, "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe."  -- Stenger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Lane Craig
The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as everâ€"indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.


"A couple of brief comments, hopefully more later. First, Borde, Guth & Vilenkin did *not* prove that eternal inflation has singularities to the past. As you know, most singularity theorems prove geodesic incompleteness, and this is the case here. What all of their theorems do are (a) write out a set of conditions which they consider to correspond to eternal inflation, then (b) show that the region in which these conditions hold is geodesically incomplete. This would indeed be consistent with eternal inflation “emerging from a primordial singularity”, but it is also consistent with eternal inflation just being grafted onto some spacetime region that is not eternally inflating by their definition." -- From Physics and Cosmology Prof. Anthony Aguirre, UC Santa Cruz

"I should also mention that the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem is (1) completely classical, not quantum, of course, and (2) a little less definitive than you make it sound, as they assume an “averaged expansion condition” which certainly may be violated along some geodesics."  -- Sean Carroll, Senior Research Associate in Physics at Cal Tech

Infinite:

"This principle can be illustrated in a simple linear equation: a line rising infinitely at a 45 degree angle with the x axis will ultimately reach the same height on the y axis as a line rising infinitely at a 90 degree angle with the x axis; it is true that, if measured over a finite period of time, the line rising at 90 degrees will always be ahead of the line rising at 45 degrees, but the 45 degree line will always reach the same points on the y axis that the 90 degree line does, it will simply take it twice as much time to do so, and because infinite entities are by their nature extratemporal, the difference in the rate of increase is completely irrelevant. Similarly, an entity whose quantity is eternally increasing (an infinite entity) does not lose this quality if its quantity at a given point in time is added to or subtracted from. Craig makes the mistake of thinking of infinity as a quantity, rather than an eternally increasing trajectory. An actual infinite trajectory is certainly possible, and time is just this sort of eternally increasing, infinite trajectory, which is advancing with every second that passes." -- http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=726

Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey
Now, what would a causeless world look like? ... something non-physical would have to be the cause of the universe.


1) "In a recent argument, the Kalam argument was offered to me as proof of a creator.

Im not a religious philosopher. My background was in science and physics. So my reply to the 'Kalam' was completely different than the other replies I've run into.

My argument with Kalam is the basic assumption of causation. That the universe was 'caused' to exist. It created a great confusion in my opponent, when I stated that causation is merely an effect of 4 dimensional space (3 of space, one of time) and that causation falls down at the quantum level.

At the quantum level, effects can precede cause, and nothing makes sense as it does in our traditional space/time that we live in. So trying to use our understanding of causation to explain what happened 'before' the big bang is to fail to understand quantum mechanics. And if you don't understand quantum mechanics, you have no business trying to theorize a 'cause' for the origin of the universe, while citing the 'big bang' as Craig does.

Its just a shame more particle physicists arn't interested in religious debates" -- debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/

2) "Dr. William Lane Craig‘s “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is one of the more sophisticated and (in some circles) popular arguments for the existence of God. Unfortunately, like so many other theistic arguments, it suffers from a fatal flaw that the author prefers to gloss over instead of address directly.


Francois Tremblay addresses the problems at Talk Reason, in particular the faulty premise of "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence":

What evidence does he have to prove that whatever begins to exist must have a cause? In his opening case, he states: “I really don't think that it's necessary because the 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.“
He does support it 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. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus he cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter.
Despite being a sophisticated and, at least in spirit, scientifically-oriented argument, Dr. Craig's version of the Kalam Argument fails to justify any of its premises. It is based on a number of assumptions -- that temporality implies the existence of a beginning, and that the existence of a beginning implies a cause -- which are not logical or scientific. Its only valid finding -- that infinity cannot be actualized -- is trivial. Furthermore, the conclusion that the hypothetical Creator is changeless is also unsupported and contradicts the rest of the argument. It is unclear how the only alternatives for an atemporal being are to be changeless or to experience an infinite regress of changes.
Craig’s argument is complex, so Tremblay’s critique is necessarily complex as well. Nevertheless, it is worth reading through because the problems in Craig’s can often be found in other forms of the Cosmological Argument. If Craig’s fails in this way, it is reasonable to think that others will also fail and that there is currently no Cosmological Argument that provides a reasonable basis for theism. " -- Austin Cline/Francois Tremblay. << Austin Cline and StrongAtheism.net argument previously posted."

[mcm]

Here's a video of him presenting these views so you can hear them explained to be more understandable and I think answers some of your questions Jolly. Unfortunately when he draws logical conclusions from atheists who don't accept step 1 he does make fun of them which I apologize for and I don't want to start a flame war. But I would be interested Will if you can think of an example where step 1 doesn't hold and what you mean by subjective cause.

Dr. William Lane Craig: How Did the Universe Begin?
http://www.saddleback.com/mediacenter/s ... qcpA0SUkE=
Talk begins 23min into video (note you have to wait for the first 23min to download before you can jump to that point)

Indeed concepts like time having a beginning is hard to get your head around.

[LoneMateria]

mcm may I ask you a question?  I don't mean to sound like an ass but I see this way too much.  How come Christians address people they like as Dr. when they don't have an accredited PHD?  Mr. Craig has two M.A. degrees one in Philosophy of religion and another in Church History.  He also has a B.S. degree in communications.  This is something I see all the time when Christians try to reference apologists.  They give them the title of Dr. regardless if they meet the qualifications just so they can try and lend credibility to the argument.  Why is it that you Christians do this and do it frequently?  Also (if I haven't burned the olive branch at this point) if I may ask is this argument the reason you believe in a god?  Or is there another reason and this argument is just a convenience thing you can point to?

[curiosityandthecat]

mcm may I ask you a question?  I don't mean to sound like an ass but I see this way too much.  How come Christians address people they like as Dr. when they don't have an accredited PHD?  Mr. Craig has two M.A. degrees one in Philosophy of religion and another in Church History.  He also has a B.S. degree in communications.  This is something I see all the time when Christians try to reference apologists.  They give them the title of Dr. regardless if they meet the qualifications just so they can try and lend credibility to the argument.  Why is it that you Christians do this and do it frequently?  Also (if I haven't burned the olive branch at this point) if I may ask is this argument the reason you believe in a god?  Or is there another reason and this argument is just a convenience thing you can point to?

[LoneMateria]

ROFL Mr. Phil.

[Whitney]

From now on everyone must refer to me as Her Magesty Dr Whitney the Magnificent!!!!

But seriously, I am curious as to why so many Christians think it is okay to tack on Dr. to their name without having earned an accredited degree.  I don't think that most of them mean to do it; they probably just believe people like Craig that they are "Dr."

[Recusant]

How come Christians address people they like as Dr. when they don't have an accredited PHD?

From Dr. Craig's wiki page:

 

In 1977 Craig earned a doctorate in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, and in 1984 a doctorate in theology under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich. During his doctoral studies, he was a Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.

Sounds credible enough to me.  I don't buy the Kalam argument, but Craig has earned 2 doctorates.  If you know anything about Craig, you'll know that he's not likely to go around calling himself "Dr." without deserving it.  I've come to respect his skill at theological debate, even if, as I said, I don't buy his arguments.  From what I've been able to gather, he pretty much won his debate with Hitchens, for instance, because, as one atheist blog put it, "Hitchens is a polemicist, not a philosopher."  Also, Hitchens doesn't like to waste time preparing for debates; he prefers to live by his wits, which, as superbly witty as Hitchens is,  may not be enough when confronting Craig's very technical style. That aside, I do agree that there are plenty of questionable "PhD's" in the ranks of the Christian academics, so it's not that surprising that you would think that Craig was among them.

[LoneMateria]

In 1977 Craig earned a doctorate in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, and in 1984 a doctorate in theology under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich. During his doctoral studies, he was a Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.

That'll teach me to just skim the wiki page.  I just looked under education and I didn't see that.  Even though i'm wrong about this person I've seen it done for other apologists.  Still curious.

[mcm]

mcm may I ask you a question?

Not at all, ask as many as you like.

How come Christians address people they like as Dr. when they don't have an accredited PHD?

I don't know. Doing a quick google search it appears some are honourary titles given by people like Oral Roberts and I guess for some receiving the title they don't want to make a statement against his ministry by not accepting it. But it kind of reminds me of the behaviour of the religious leaders (wore special garments to elevate their status in the community) in the bible of Jesus time who we're told not to act like.

Is this argument the reason you believe in a god?

No it isn't and I believe if someone has been argued into the faith then it's just as easy to argue them out of it too. The main reason why I remembered this video is near the end he gives a few logical arguments about what this creator would be like (can't remember them now, and people can probably find holes in them) but I just thought it was cool because it kind of backed up the verse in the bible which says God's invisible qualities can be observed in what he has created.

... this argument is just a convenience thing you can point to?

This is actually the first time I've done so. I was just reading this thread and was reminded of this video and curious about peoples opinion on it, but after doing a quick search before posting it I found this thread instead.

Or is there another reason

For me the main reason why I believe in God is because of my experiences and the help the bible has been to me in my life. For example I remember in Yr5 at school I used to beat myself up over the way I had behaved in certain situations and had trouble sleeping for like a week or so. Then for the first time in my life I prayed to God out of my own accord (grew up in a christian home), although I still had trouble sleeping that night, the next night I realised it was like a big burden had been lifted off and could go to sleep easily. A year later I started feeling that way again but instead of praying to God I put him to the test by not praying the first night but only on the second and sure enough it was only the night after I prayed my burden was lifted (haven't felt burdened that way since).

[Ihateusernames]

I'm bothered by flawed axioms. Most axioms I come across are assumptions presented as fundamental truths.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause? Of course not. Cause is entirely subjective, thus whatever begins and is subjectively considered to have a cause still does not necessarily have an objective cause.

William Lane Craig is a Christian apologist and faux-intellectual. I wish I could debate every Christian apologist at once and take them all apart.

I've found other posts by you to be interesting, so I was wondering if I could request a more detailed explanation of your stance on this than "of course not", as well as possibly an example of something (other than the universe as that is what we are discussing) that does not have a cause.  When I throw bleach and ammonia into the same bucket, is the reason that chlorine gas erupts really subjective? or can we honestly say that the cause of the chlorine gas is objective (ie the two chemicals mixing)?
I dunno, pinpointing the cause of an issue is very subjective (what caused this banana to be happy -->  :yay:

-Ihateusernames

[LoneMateria]

I don't know. Doing a quick google search it appears some are honourary titles given by people like Oral Roberts and I guess for some receiving the title they don't want to make a statement against his ministry by not accepting it. But it kind of reminds me of the behaviour of the religious leaders (wore special garments to elevate their status in the community) in the bible of Jesus time who we're told not to act like.

Bad research on my part.  Like I said before when I looked through though Craig's wiki I didn't see where it said he got his PHD's.  I just saw his M.A. Degrees and was basing my question off that assumption.  I didn't know if your paster called him Dr or a friend or if you did it.  Like I said though i'm wrong there.  

Anyway I'm surprised about an honorary title for Oral Roberts (who will forever be known as the guy who raised money by lying to his congregation saying God would kill him).  Does his followers just call him that?  From my experience arguing with some Christians I hear them referring to someone as a doctor to try to raise the persons credibility.  I don't know if it's an honest mistake or if it's intentional.  But anyway you haven't referred to someone as a doctor who doesn't have the credentials so you can't help answer this I guess.  

No it isn't and I believe if someone has been argued into the faith then it's just as easy to argue them out of it too.

Is this really a bad thing?  Not just from an atheists standpoint but in general?  If you have been convinced by some arguments to believe in a god then it shows you are using reasoning and logic (no matter if you are committing fallacies) to come to your conclusion.  And if you can be argued out of it it's even better because it shows a willingness to correct any mistakes you may have made in this process.  Whether this leads you to another religion or to no religion this is a good thing.  Even Christians will say God doesn't want robots (free will argument).  There is no reason to go on forever with a mistake or an obvious contradiction in your belief after all and to be unwilling to change it.

This is actually the first time I've done so. I was just reading this thread and was reminded of this video and curious about peoples opinion on it, but after doing a quick search before posting it I found this thread instead.

Ahh kk.  We get quite a few Christians who come there to present an argument as their "irrefutable proof" that God exists.  And I always wonder if the (normally poor) argument they put forward is the reason they believe.  And if it's not then I'd like to ask them why they think it would convince us.  But they are usually gone by the time I get around to asking it.  So I was just curious and thats why i asked.  But you aren't presenting a new argument you are just providing resources which exempts you from this ^_^.  But any insight you may have on it (if you have friends who proselytize or w/e insight you might have) would make for a good discussion.

For me the main reason why I believe in God is because of my experiences and the help the bible has been to me in my life. For example I remember in Yr5 at school I used to beat myself up over the way I had behaved in certain situations and had trouble sleeping for like a week or so. Then for the first time in my life I prayed to God out of my own accord (grew up in a christian home), although I still had trouble sleeping that night, the next night I realised it was like a big burden had been lifted off and could go to sleep easily. A year later I started feeling that way again but instead of praying to God I put him to the test by not praying the first night but only on the second and sure enough it was only the night after I prayed my burden was lifted (haven't felt burdened that way since).

I'm usually bad about this.  As atheists we tend to have a dogma for trying to "deconvert" people.  There may be some truth to it because sometimes I find myself trying that.  But I do my best to respect a persons religion within reason.  So thank you for sharing your story with us.  In my response I am in no way trying to convert you or anything like that.  I'm just going to give you my perspective on things (if you are interested at all).  If you aren't interested just ignore my next paragraph ^_^

Because a book can help you get through an emotional part of your life doesn't mean its true.  I found when I was upset as a kid that reading StarWars books calmed me down.  Something about using the Force and all that jazz.  That doesn't mean there is a real Luke Skywalker and that the Force is real (despite what the "Jedi" of the StarWars Religion will say ... and yes there is an actual StarWars Religion with half a million followers around the world).  Now when I was a kid I was very similar to you in regards to sleeping.  I would worry about something or think about something a lot and though at the time I considered myself a Christian I didn't turn to God for the answers.  Instead I meditated (which is essentially what you are doing when your praying) and after a while I found out how to let go of my worries.  I've had awesome sleep for years now.  I no longer need to meditate because I taught myself how to let go and not allow my mind to wander.  My solution, granted it's kind of like procrastination, is to tell myself that I can deal with whatever it is tomorrow when i'm rested and better able to handle the situation at hand.  It works ^_^