Why the Kalam cosmological argument fails.

Post Reply New Topic

Even with mutiuniverse, it is problematic to say that the universe is caused. Our universe is just part of the multi-universe. With this logic, can I say I am the cause of my brain?

Well there are really two point there.

1. The universe can exist necessarily.

Well I have no knowledge of any senior contemporary atheists who hold this view. The closest person I know of why sort of flirted with this view was Prof. Adolf Grunbaum. He however specifically stated anything that resembles a claim that the universe exists necessarily was coincidence. So why are people usually reticent to claim this?

Well everything that exists in the universe, stars, planets dust etc can all fail to exist. There was also a point where they did not; during the early stages of the universe. The only other
candidate is the matter that comprises these things. If they do exist necessarily, then couldn't a different set of fundamental particles exist? Do these particles then exist necessarily, no? Even if a universe was made of exactly identical particles as this one (much like an exact replical of you, the same but clearly different) it would be a different universe. We can therefor conclude that the universe does not exist necessarily.

2. The universe's beginning requires a cause

Firstly I would like to clarify something. The KCA does not argue, everything has a cause; rather it states 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'. It is an important general distinction (though 01001011 has not made a mistake with this, I just wanted to clarify).

Now Dr. Craig has not claimed that the KCA's second premiss is based solely on intuition. Though he has stated that it is quite plausible in its own right. It is based on the assertion that things exist in two different ways; by cause or by the necessity of their own existence. Number for instance do not have a cause, but many mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics believe that numbers exist necessarily. If we can rule out necessity, there is no reason to plausibly think that the universe not need a cause. This view is also confirmed by the scientific method, since everything we know of that begins to exist, has a cause*.

*I think I should preemptively state, quantum particles have cause, the quantum vacuum is not nothing, it is a sea of fluctuating energy that spawns (it depends on the interpretation used, some interpretations are random others fully deterministic) particles. This tends to come up a lot.

Most sorts of multiverse theory are inflationary. This means that a multiverse simply pushes back the beginning point, it does not escape it. If the model is inflationary the multiverse itself can be tracked back to a finite beginning point.

Slipped again. What does necessity mean here?

The fact that there are no laws of physics in nothing is kind of the point of the KCA. Nothing can come from nothing, therefor one needs something like an unmoved mover. The very definition of God is that he is uncaused, so a necessary existence is part of the deal.



By necessity means it could not fail to exist as it is. The universe could easily have been different, therefor it does not exist necessarily. Since it does not exist necessarily the universe must have a causal explanation.



You statement on mathematics is your own view. There are a good many mathematicians and philosophers who believe numbers exists as abstract objects. The Pythagoreans even built a religion around it.

Now the new definition of necessity means it is logically impossible for the entry under question to exist as it is.



The non-definition of sets is THE modern standard, not my personal opinion, and what many mathematicians you are talking about? The Pythagoreans doesn't know modern mathematics.



That is NOT the case according to your definition. As I said, numbers are constructed by set theory, usually based on the ZFC axioms. Is it logically possible that the ZFC are inconsistent? Thanks to Godel it is impossible to prove it consistency, so the possibility will always exist. Therefore, even the numbers cannot exist necessarily.



That is also false. The quantum vacuum is not sufficient to cause a PARTICULAR event.



Now you claim that god by definition exists necessarily. That means the statement 'god exist as it is' is a tautology. So you are saying that you have a logical proof for god's existence (and the KCA does not work because logically 'the universe exists' may be false)? I don't think any senior contemporary theologian who make this claim. Care to provide the proof?

The conjunction does not follow. All that follows (ignoring the metaphysical difficulties you've raised and assuming the premises are true) is that the universe has a cause. You would need further premises to infer the existence of God.

A contemporary rendition of this argument is given by a man named William Lane Craig. He says the nature of the singularity is such that it necessitates a transcendent cause. The singularity was an event that emerged out of a timeless, spaceless state, so whatever caused it was also timeless and spaceless. These are typically properties attributed to God.



Craig says that the cause is simultaneous with the singularity. God somehow "stood up" (figuratively) from eternity and brought the universe into existence. The cause could not have occurred before the singularity.

FWIW, I have my own misgivings with the Kalam argument. But the syllogism in the OP is a straw man. No one in the philosophical literature presents the Kalam argument that way. Notice how the OP does not contain a link or a reference to the philosophy of religion literature. No professional philosopher is cited, nothing - he's attacking his own weakened version of the Kalam argument. This is intellectual dishonesty.

To be fair, this framing is very much similar to William Lane Craig's framing of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosm ... y_argument He usually does just represent it as being like it is presented here, and has done so in a significant number of debates. Even further, the philosophical literature isn't going to be the only literature on cosmological arguments. It may be the most advanced literature, but this idea is going to probably be found in a number of apologists, many of whom might not have the philosophical training to even state the argument right.

To make a claim of intellectual dishonesty, I think you will need stronger evidence than what you provided. After all, not all posters will be familiar with the philosophical literature, but if they present something, even if based upon some level of ignorance, they aren't necessarily being dishonest. Even further, if a lot of people might hear of an idea from outside of scholarship, thus allowing for weaker interpretations that aren't dishonest.

@01001011

Can you elaborate on what you are saying in your last post. I would like to know specifically what you are trying to state.

^^^^

Para 1) Recaps the definition of necessary existence

Para 2) Proves that numbers does not exist by necessity

Para 3) Refutes the claim that quantum vacuum is the cause of quantum events

Para 4) Points out how impossible for anything to exist by necessity.

Is there anything in particular you don't understand?

Impossible, at least at present. Most academics declare a stalemate on the issue. Set theory can be interpreted both ways. So this is not a disproof.

Citing Godel as being the certainty of the subject is dangerous; especially considering his link to the Ontological Argument. Also, next to his incompleteness theorem, there is his completeness theorem, so 'disproof' is a reach.

Also, the Kalam does not claim that numbers exist necessarily. It simply puts forward the possibility of God's necessary existence, there is no need to conflate the two issues.

On a side note, abstract objects, necessity and incompleteness is actually something I tend to write on.



I need more than a summary of what it is you are trying to say here.



Necessary existence is necessary, if one accepts a causal chain, there has to be a fist uncaused cause; thats the point of the argument

The Kalam argument does not posit a necessary being. It posits an eternal, uncaused being. The contingency argument posits a necessary being. Even if there are no necessary entities, that would not preclude the existence of the God entailed by the Kalam argument. You are really out to sea here.

You are correct. In relation to God's existence, the KCA leaves the question of contingent or metaphysical necessity open.

No it isn't. Craig's version is logically valid. The conjunction "Therefore, the universe has a cause and we call it God" is not entailed by the premises. It is a non sequitur. No one in the philosophy of religion literature presents the argument that way because it is invalid. The OP is knocking down a weakened version of the Kalam argument.

From the Wikipedia link:



You'll note that the conclusion is not a conjunction. The premises have to be fleshed out before one can conclude that God is the cause of the universe.



Craig couldn't be that careless. What is your source?



No source whatsoever was given. The OP is claimed to be the Kalam argument, but as shown by your own link it isn't. It's a non sequitur he's passing off as the Kalam argument. He is either dishonest or ignorant.

Can you clarify what do you mean? What is your objection to my proof?

My argument is relevant because it proves it is possible to have non-necessary uncaused objects.



What is the definition of a causal chain? I don't see why our intuition on causality must be valid.

You are obviously not reading the whole thread, or even the OP. My OP is clearly attacking the existence of a cause of the universe. Whether it is OK to call the cause god is irrelevant (and in any case we are free to call such entry whatever we like). The whole necessity existence thing was suggested by 91, not me. As for where I get my version of the argument, it is form an earlier post by 91 (and it is 91 who invited me to state this thread).