I don't really see why the distinction between amateur/expert distinction would be relevant to the question of whether the argument succeeds. There is a huge gaping hole in the logic here, and regardless of whether or not laymen see value in it, non-theists will go for the jugular. The quantum vacuum objection is actually a pretty standard response amongst that population, so I don't consider it overly subtle.
To be honest, I'm not convinced any causal argument works outside of a broadly Aristotelian frame. Without a more robust notion of causality, we're just talking about efficient causes, and there's no reason to really conceptualize those in anything but materialistic terms. Hence the quantum vacuum getting to do all the work.
While this argument is not universally persuasive, I do believe that it is an effective argument for God's existence. This is to say that the premises and conclusions are more plausible than their negations. Let's take a look at this argument in this thread and hash it out. Here is a simple form of the argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
The argument looks sound and valid to me. Conclusion (3) would imply that God is the cause of the universe. Perhaps you would deny or challenge one or more of the premises. Perhaps you would challenge the validity of the argument. Perhaps you would accept the argument but deny that God is the cause of the universe.
Discuss.
Premise 1 is not supported by any evidence.
It sounds great on its face, however it's fundamentally flawed as we've never actually witnessed anything begin to exist.
Don't get me wrong, we see all kinds of new stuff happen. Trees make seeds which grow into other trees, humans make babies, and the car plant down the road builds new cars, etc....
However everything that "begins to exist" in that way is a reorganization of previously existing matter and energy. The particles that make up that tree, your body, or the new car rolling off the assembly line has existed since at least the beginning of the universe.
We have never seen the creation of new matter or energy, we don't know how it could be created, we don't know if new matter or energy can be created, and we certainly don't know a cause, or if there is a cause at all.
Conflating everyday creation of new stuff with the creation of new matter and energy is a dishonest attempt to slip one past someone that isn't familiar with these arguments. (I'm not saying you're doing this, but a guy like William Lane Craig is certainly familiar with the problems with the Kalam argument).
Since premise 1 is unsupported, then premises 2 and 3 don't follow. Unless you can demonstrate premise 1, the argument falls apart.
So, how do we know what, or if something caused the creation of matter and energy?
Premise 1 is something of a common sense premise. If pressed then we must admit that the things that we see "begin to exist" are indeed comprised of parts that pre-existed the things. A person does not begin to exist ex nihilo. But a person does indeed begin to exist in any sense of the term. There was a point in time when your person did not exist. And now, thank God, it does!
I really think that you're denying premise 2. You would want to deny that matter and energy ever began to exist. Is this right?
Non-theists and combative atheists are very different populations, and the logic isn't gaping if the unspecified premises are in place. Even if they come from social conditioning, it requires more to claim that the social conditioning is erroneous.
Did Aristotle himself conclude with a prime mover having intellect and will? It doesn't seem that he did. The same basic problem applies there.
I think you missed the point I was raising.
My point was that things coming into existence in everyday life, like people, or things that we build, etc is not the same as matter and energy coming into existence. The Kalam relies on conflating these two very different things.
As I pointed out, premise one sounds good on its face, or as you put it "a common sense premise", however that relies on people missing the conflation that I pointed out above.
When talking about the creation of the universe, the creation of matter and energy is all that matters. We have never witnessed that happen ever, we don't know how, or if it was caused by anything.
The fact we can cause things like a shed to be built in the backyard is entirely irrelevant to the creation of matter and energy in and of itself. They are not remotely equal, or even related propositions.
I believe I understand the point. Premise (1) and premise (2) are related analogically. I fully agree that the kind of "beginning to exist" that is in view in premise (1) is categorically different than the universe "beginning to exist" in premise (2). However, they are related analogically. The principle of causality, for example, would apply to both "beginnings" even though they are categorically different. If the universe - matter and energy - began to exist, it would also have a cause. Unless you want to deny premise (2).
We have no reason to believe that the concept of cause and effect applies to the creation of the universe though. Cause and effect is necessarily a temporal construct, you need a passage of time for a cause to then create an effect. It may not be a long period of time, but you still need some passage of time.
All the evidence we have says time came into existence with the universe itself, the idea of "before" the universe is logically incoherent. Without time, you can't have cause and effect.
So, you need to justify how the universe coming into existence requires a cause, when there's no plausible way cause and effect would even work until after the universe already came into existence.
I think this is a misunderstanding of eternity. It is not a never ending passage of time. Eternity is timeless.
That would be my best guess. I don't know how it's close to theism though. The distinction of a willed choice or a mindless force seems to be miles apart to me.
Herein you seem to concede that spacetime came into existence. But you also are arguing that its coming into existence (presumably from nothing) does not require an explanation.
So would you suggest that the universe popped into existence from nothing and no explanation is required?
I’m a huge Sci-Fi fan, other worlds with alternate laws of nature (and intelligent life) is definitely a fascinating thought!If something does exist outside the universe, we don't know what rules govern it, and we certainly have no reason to believe the rules that apply to this universe would apply to the conditions that sparked the big bang, or whatever environment existed at that point.
The conclusion (3) does not imply that God is the cause of the universe. Additional argumentation is required to establish that. To his credit, Craig (the most well-known supporter of this argument) does present additional arguments, but too often the focus is on the first tree lines of the argument.The argument looks sound and valid to me. Conclusion (3) would imply that God is the cause of the universe. Perhaps you would deny or challenge one or more of the premises. Perhaps you would challenge the validity of the argument. Perhaps you would accept the argument but deny that God is the cause of the universe.
This is relatively speaking. Relatively speaking things do begin to exist. Sure, these things are composed of parts that preceded their existence. But even then the principle holds true that whatever begins to exist has a cause. An apple is composed of matter that long pre-existed the apple, but the apple still does, relatively speaking, begin to exist at some point. It is caused by the apple tree.
What you might be contesting is premise (2) - that matter and energy itself began to exist. Do you mean to contest this idea?
All these examples suggest that you are talking about creation ex materia. Is that what the first premise refers to? Does the second premise also refer to creation ex materia? If it does not then there's a problem with equivocation, with the argument switching between two different meanings of the relevant terms.Or another approach...
Did you begin to exist or has your person always existed? Have you ever seen a childbirth? Does a child begin to exist at some point or have they always existed as such?
This is an uncharitable interpretation of what many atheists actually say. It's not a matter of "nothing created everything" or "nothing created the universe." A more charitable interpretation is that the universe did not need to be created. It was not the case that there was nothing, and that this nothing somehow generated a universe; there never was a nothing.The whole point of the argument is not to prove or disprove God. Rather to show that God's existence is logically and scientifically possible. There is absolutely no speculating about it. It is simply a matter of if this is true then logically that must be true as well. As a result of this argument, anyone who makes the claim that there is no God makes a claim based on faith. You speak of magical "creatio ex nihilo", but the best thing that atheist can suggest is that nothing created everything for absolutely no reason. That idea is more absurd than magic. Because at least with magic you have a magician waving a wand to make a rabbit appear out of nowhere. Atheists seem to suggest that a rabbit just appeared from nothing, by nothing, for absolutely no reason.
I’m a huge Sci-Fi fan, other worlds with alternate laws of nature (and intelligent life) is definitely a fascinating thought!
A general comment about the KCA: It's an interesting argument because most of its modern-day proponents try to use findings from cosmology to support its key premises, particularly the second one. Its appeal thus seems to lie in its apparent scientific credentials. That's what makes it interesting and sets it apart from other cosmological arguments, which don't seem to lean so heavily on the findings of Big Bang cosmology specifically. That said, it's probably not the best cosmological argument out there, despite its simplicity and apparent connection to the latest science.
It's been a while! I'm doing well. And am pleased to see many familiar posters still around!Well, look who's back? How 'ya doing, Arch? I haven't seen you around for quite some time!
It's been a while! I'm doing well. And am pleased to see many familiar posters still around!
I still read philosophy whenever I can, although professionally that's not what I do. But it's hard to give up on philosophy... the unexamined life not being worth living and all.Yes, some of us are still here, just rock'n along. Do you still read/study philosophy, or have you let that go and moved on to something else?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?