Kalaam Cosmological Argument

[Silmarien]

In reading through your response here, Sil--and since I'm just not that familiar with Craig's overall set of arguments for this or that notion of Cosmological sensibilities ('cuz I start with Lee Smolin rather than with WLC), not to mention the Kalaam argument specifically-- I began to imagine and wonder as to just what WLC would say to us [you? ] at this point, taking your criticisms, or something very much akin to your criticisms, in tow.

And in pondering this over, I think I've found something that helps me visualize what Craig would say to those of us who think his Kalaam is a bunch of hooey. In the following video, Craig explains that he thinks the Kalaam is a 'deductive' argument which is to be presented within certain strictures of a valid deductive process, and he maintains the assumption in his argumentation that we should have a preference for an A-theory of time as opposed to a B-theory of time. This he seems to outline in the first 8 or 9 minutes of the video below. I haven't watched the rest of it, but I will...so don't shoot the messenger, at least not yet.

There wouldn't happen to be a transcript anywhere, would there?

The other problem with Craig is his insistence on the A-Theory of Time. I don't have a preference for it, and frankly think it's wrong, so anything that follows isn't going to be terribly interesting or useful to me.

Thats where I'm at with Kalam.

But it goes further. Not only are the premises undecidable. But even if true, the dont necessarily indicate anything like a god being.

I find it an appallingly bad argument.

In fact I'm starting to think that all attempts at rigorous theological argument are doomed by the necessity to assert strong premises regarding the unknown.

You know, I used to agree with you, but I think a lot of it depends on how we conceptualize "known" and "unknown," where we draw lines, and what sort of knowledge we think we have access to.

I take the opposite approach to a lot of people here. I think we have direct, intuitive knowledge of Being Itself, in the theological sense, but I would deny that we truly "know" anything about physical reality. And I mean that for real: I've toyed around with forms of Platonic idealism in the past, doubting whether matter genuinely exists. If you're in that territory, the known and the unknown switch places, the ontological argument comes alive, and everything changes.

I think the real value in the various arguments is just the way that really delving into them helps to clarify the way you think about things. Strangely enough, I was finally fully won over because of a line of thought based on an objection to a theistic argument rather than because of the actual arguments.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There wouldn't happen to be a transcript anywhere, would there?

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any transcript of the video other than the one that Youtube provides.

The other problem with Craig is his insistence on the A-Theory of Time. I don't have a preference for it, and frankly think it's wrong, so anything that follows isn't going to be terribly interesting or useful to me.

I know you don't have a preference for the A-Theory, which is one of the reasons I find this specific video interesting, especially since it seems that Craig attempts to explain why he takes this approach rather than the B-Theory option.

My point in providing the video is to allow you a little extra insight into the mechanics of his thinking, and if you know his explanations for why he has chosen to continue to argue the Kalaam the way he has, then it could become even simpler for you to dismantle his position. But suite yourself. I don't want to take your attention away from what I'm sure are more important matters at the moment (like your vacation and your focus on Liberation Theology).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

duplicate post

 

[Silmarien]

I disagree, and what he says there is pretty much what I expected; if you give the argument the benefit of the doubt you naturally assume those arguments.

I don't think we do. 21st century "natural" assumptions are more likely to run in a mechanistic, materialistic direction, and failing that, in a kind of pantheistic one. The sort of underlying assumptions necessary for people to connect the dots here don't necessarily exist in a post-Christian world.

Here is a central paragraph of his defense of the conclusion:

What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we’ve seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.
...and he goes on to argue that the first cause is personal.

Uncaused is a valid conclusion, but I think additional argumentation is necessary to get to immaterial and non-physical. There's a difference between claiming that our universe had a beginning on empirical grounds, and claiming that the material cannot be eternal even in principle. That's one of the major places where I think serious argumentation is required here.

The first cause as personal is more interesting, though I don't think we can rule out the possibility of a creative impersonal force that is at the heart of an eternal multiverse. I think you need a better reason to get to personal than the Kalam has to offer.

As long as these arguments are actually spelled out, I'm not going to scream bloody murder, but I think the lack of more sustained justification is problematic. There isn't anything here that's going to be compelling to anyone who doesn't already lean towards theism.

You're especially fiery of late.

I am pulling the polemical classical theist card. I think everything about this style of argument is completely backwards. And I got tired of defending Craig against all of his detractors around here, because I honestly think he's surprisingly sloppy for a professional philosopher.

I don't like the Kalam because of its tendency to see God as a particular being possessing existence alongside other existing beings, but I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be.

No, it's the syllogism that I think is terrible. I would have less problems with a more rigorously defended Kalam, but I'm going to throw a fit over any argument that isn't tightly devised and argued. My problem is form rather than content.

I dislike the Kalam, because I think you'd need a separate argument to defend the immateriality of the First Cause, and whatever argument you end up with is going to be stronger than the Kalam, so why bother with it in the first place? (Actually, I think this is the other side of your complaint with it. It encourages people to see God as possessing existence because it by itself doesn't have the tools to stress what immateriality really means.)

 

[Silmarien]

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any transcript of the video other than the one that Youtube provides.

I know you don't have a preference for the A-Theory, which is one of the reasons I find this specific video interesting, especially since it seems that Craig attempts to explain why he takes this approach rather than the B-Theory option.

My point in providing the video is to allow you a little extra insight into the mechanics of his thinking, and if you know his explanations for why he has chosen to continue to argue the Kalaam the way he has, then it could become even simpler for you to dismantle his position. But suite yourself. I don't want to take your attention away from what I'm sure are more important matters at the moment (like your vacation and your focus on Liberation Theology).

That's more a fascination than a focus, lol. Latin American studies meets theology.

I skimmed a little bit of the video, and honestly I think his thinking on A and B theory of time runs into the same problem that has been pointed out in his theistic arguments. He treats them as two distinct, clearly drawn alternatives: a couple arguments in defense of his preferred model, a couple against the opposing view, and case closed. What about theories that combine them in various ways? How would they affect the Kalam?

I've seen the Kalam argued on the B theory before. It is so much more interesting, so argh, why this insistence on the A theory?

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is exactly what Albert Einstein set out to prove, that the universe had no beginning so as to discount the need for a source of creation. Instead he ended up proving the opposite that the universe must have had a beginning, which is why we have E=MC2 as an accurate measure of energy.

By the way, the term 'God' when defined as the source of the energy of creation, is an axiom, so it's self evident in concept.

I think your science education needs some work.... Einstein didn't set out to prove anything about the big bang or beginning of the universe, and his landmark work doesn't really have much to do with it. E=mc2 has no bearing on theology at all.

General and Special Relativity describes physics in our universe and the relationship between space and time.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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.

Back in the day when I used to debate these things, an atheist or agnostic would come along and challenge premise 2 noting an assumption that the universe has a beginning while suggesting the idea that the universe is eternal. However, I could never buy into the implication which is an infinite regress of cause. At the same time they will ask the old question; "well then, who or what caused God?". It is a good question I think, and I think we make an exception to the general "rule" of causality, when we answer by suggesting God is a cause and not an effect, therefore He is the uncaused causer of all effects. If I remember, it was Plato that introduced the notion of an unmoved mover...interesting to think about in an ever changing universe which exhibits design, purpose, and order rather than blind random chance, which doesn't square away well with the law of causality, considering how crucial it is to predictability in experimentation throughout the Sciences.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What I would say is, "Well, why not? Why shouldn't his presentation change based on who the audience is?"

Craig has written books and articles on this topic, he has done talks and debates, and each of these endeavors is doubtless aimed at a different audience.

It should change depending on the audience/readership. But there's always the risk over oversimplifying and omitting relevant information, to the point of misrepresentation. Craig sometimes seems to fall into this trap—making things appear much more cut and dried than they really are. But then again so do some popular atheist figures, so he's not alone in this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's more a fascination than a focus, lol. Latin American studies meets theology.

... I guess in the social climate in which we now live, this kind of thing can become more and more fascinating as we all move along. But, that is another discussion for another time on another thread, I think.

I skimmed a little bit of the video, and honestly I think his thinking on A and B theory of time runs into the same problem that has been pointed out in his theistic arguments. He treats them as two distinct, clearly drawn alternatives: a couple arguments in defense of his preferred model, a couple against the opposing view, and case closed. What about theories that combine them in various ways? How would they affect the Kalam?

And which theories combine them, Silmarien?

I've seen the Kalam argued on the B theory before. It is so much more interesting, so argh, why this insistence on the A theory?

He says 'why' in the video. I'll have to review it and see if I can find his explanation again. Just keep in mind that if you really want to know 'why,' you can buy his two-volume book in which he covers all of this...and find out.

Personally, I don't know either way. I'm just now wading into all of this and I'm not even sure why so many folks bother with this exercise in futility on the whole, whether its A or B or 'x'. This whole Cosmological Argumentation doesn't seem to achieve much significance for me. I really don't know which way to go with all of this since I tend to stick with plain ol' scientific cosmology and just ask lots of unanswerable questions which fit more with my existential exploration into understanding the limits of everyone else's respective theories.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It should change depending on the audience/readership. But there's always the risk over oversimplifying and omitting relevant information, to the point of misrepresentation. Craig sometimes seems to fall into this trap—making things appear much more cut and dried than they really are.

...well, if Craig has been producing a series of videos on his online network, such as the one I posted yesterday, and in those videos he seems to attempt to 'field' various grievances that are being lodged from persons like yourself, then... what's the problem, Arch?

But then again so do some popular atheist figures, so he's not alone in this.

So, do we want to say that there may be some common epistemic malady running amok that Craig has contracted which also afflicts a large number of Atheists and/or Ex-Christians?

 

[durangodawood]

....I take the opposite approach to a lot of people here. I think we have direct, intuitive knowledge of Being Itself, in the theological sense, but I would deny that we truly "know" anything about physical reality.....

Perhaps. But its very hard to make supportable claims about intuitive knowledge in the forms of reasoned argument. Intuitive knowledge is not transferable from person to person the way that traditional empirically derived knowledge is.

At the same time, creation type arguments all seem to rely on sheer assumption about the continuity of our sense of time/space/causality across all possible realms.

This is why I find reasoning toward theological claims bankrupt, while appeals to people's (perhaps dormant) intuitive senses can be fruitful. "Do you agree with this?" is inferior to "does this resonate with you?"

....I've toyed around with forms of Platonic idealism in the past, doubting whether matter genuinely exists. If you're in that territory, the known and the unknown switch places, the ontological argument comes alive, and everything changes....

This is awesome. I dont know what it means, but I want some!

 

[Silmarien]

And which theories combine them, Silmarien?

Hard to say. I imagine every physicist and philosopher would have a slightly different approach and not be in a very clear camp one way or the other. I'm more sympathetic to B theory, but I don't think a block universe actually entails that time and change are illusory--they are real, but only from a perspective internal to the universe (and relative to position, it would seem). Externally, however, I expect that the universe is a block of space-time where everything is eternally present.

I don't think this rules out the Kalam, but every time I try to formulate it on this type of view of time, I end up focusing on the reality of change in a tenseless universe and end up with something closer to Aquinas's First Way instead, so... yeah. Hard to be fond of an argument when every time you try to make it work, it turns into a different argument instead.

...well, if Craig has been producing a series of videos on his online network, such as the one I posted yesterday, and in those videos he seems to attempt to 'field' various grievances that are being lodged from persons like yourself, then... what's the problem, Arch?

I think one problem is that you can find a five minute video about the Kalam on Craig's channel, and then you can find a half-an-hour video, or an hour video, and so forth and so on. The longer ones are going to be more detailed, but the shorter ones are going to be more popular--and they can be directly attributed back to Craig, because they're not a third party simplification.

I stopped defending him when I realized that he was the one contributing to the misrepresentation of his own arguments.

So, do we want to say that there may be some common epistemic malady running amok that Craig has contracted which also afflicts a large number of Atheists and/or Ex-Christians?

I call it visual media and short attention span.

 

[Silmarien]

Perhaps. But its very hard to make supportable claims about intuitive knowledge in the forms of reasoned argument. Intuitive knowledge is not transferable from person to person the way that traditional empirically derived knowledge is.

Depends on what you mean by "intuitive knowledge." I mean it more in a scholastic sense--the possibility of direct knowledge compared to representative knowledge, and whether a theory of cognition based exclusively upon modeling truly captures how the mind actually grasps reality. It's not about feeling that something is true, but about the nature of ontological knowledge. So it's less something opposed to empiricism (except insofar as rationalism and empiricism are always opposed), and more the school of thought that runs from the Platonists, through the Franciscans, to the various idealists and phenomenologists.

Definitely tricky to argue for, though, but there have been plenty of attempts.

At the same time, creation type arguments all seem to rely on sheer assumption about the continuity of our sense of time/space/causality across all possible realms.

I'm not thrilled with arguments like the Kalam, but I don't think all cosmological arguments fall into the trap of extending notions of causality internal to the universe to something outside of the universe as well. Honestly, I would argue that denying certain theistic reasoning leads to far stronger claims about the nature of reality.

It is very interesting, for example, that laws of causality seem to hold to be true at the macro level (and presumably some funky altered form holds true at the quantum level as well, or probability would be out the window). I think the Principle of Sufficient Reason is a very valid consideration here--laws and regularities are not the sort of things that should at some point spring into existence of their own accord for no reason. The only ways to account for them seem to be a strong form of necessitarianism, whereby physical reality simply must be what it is, or by appealing to freedom and will as the most fundamental aspect of reality. Instead of arguing that God is another step in the causal chain, I would say that he is what the causal chain is grounded in, and what is sustaining it in existence. I also prefer to think in phenomenological terms (hence, freedom and will), since these are seemingly unsolvable mysteries that we have deep, experiential knowledge of. They are kind of both knowns and unknowns at the same time, so very interesting.

I don't know if that makes any sense. I complain about arguing for this type of stuff in only a paragraph or two, but I'm not planning on writing a dissertation about it either.

This is why I find reasoning toward theological claims bankrupt, while appeals to people's (perhaps dormant) intuitive senses can be fruitful. "Do you agree with this?" is inferior to "does this resonate with you?"

It depends upon the person. I don't think arguing over apologetics is particularly useful, since everyone ends up with an emotional stake in their position and tends to get more entrenched. I dislike Craig more now than I did at the beginning of the thread, and have only gotten more shrill and angry about it.

For me, the arguments are mostly tools for thinking more clearly about this type of stuff, for figuring out what exactly it was that resonated with me in the first place, and why I don't think the alternatives work. They're useful for clearly away the cobwebs, so to speak. (Unfortunately, those cobwebs are not clear enough yet that I can write about any of it effectively!)

This is awesome. I dont know what it means, but I want some!

Hahaha, you want Plotinus and Hegel, then.

 

[childeye 2]

I think your science education needs some work.... Einstein didn't set out to prove anything about the big bang or beginning of the universe, and his landmark work doesn't really have much to do with it. E=mc2 has no bearing on theology at all.

General and Special Relativity describes physics in our universe and the relationship between space and time.

I agree that my science education needs work, however I believe you're misunderstanding what my post said. I never said that Einstein set out to prove the big bang or the beginning of the universe. I said that he started out with the belief that the universe had no beginning. To be precise, I'm simply recalling what I read from his interview in Time magazine, but my memory is not what it used to be...

I would think that if God created everything when He spoke, then everything in the universe including the physics of the Universe would be applicable to theology.

 

[devolved]

There wouldn't happen to be a transcript anywhere, would there?

Recent Responses to the Kalam Argument | Reasonable Faith

 

[durangodawood]

Recent Responses to the Kalam Argument | Reasonable Faith

The link opens up with this absolute whopper: You know an argument is a good one when there is so much response to it.

Should I even read on?

 

[durangodawood]

Depends on what you mean by "intuitive knowledge." I mean it more in a scholastic sense--the possibility of direct knowledge compared to representative knowledge, and whether a theory of cognition based exclusively upon modeling truly captures how the mind actually grasps reality. It's not about feeling that something is true, but about the nature of ontological knowledge. So it's less something opposed to empiricism (except insofar as rationalism and empiricism are always opposed), and more the school of thought that runs from the Platonists, through the Franciscans, to the various idealists and phenomenologists.

Definitely tricky to argue for, though, but there have been plenty of attempts.



I'm not thrilled with arguments like the Kalam, but I don't think all cosmological arguments fall into the trap of extending notions of causality internal to the universe to something outside of the universe as well. Honestly, I would argue that denying certain theistic reasoning leads to far stronger claims about the nature of reality.

It is very interesting, for example, that laws of causality seem to hold to be true at the macro level (and presumably some funky altered form holds true at the quantum level as well, or probability would be out the window). I think the Principle of Sufficient Reason is a very valid consideration here--laws and regularities are not the sort of things that should at some point spring into existence of their own accord for no reason. The only ways to account for them seem to be a strong form of necessitarianism, whereby physical reality simply must be what it is, or by appealing to freedom and will as the most fundamental aspect of reality. Instead of arguing that God is another step in the causal chain, I would say that he is what the causal chain is grounded in, and what is sustaining it in existence. I also prefer to think in phenomenological terms (hence, freedom and will), since these are seemingly unsolvable mysteries that we have deep, experiential knowledge of. They are kind of both knowns and unknowns at the same time, so very interesting.

I don't know if that makes any sense. I complain about arguing for this type of stuff in only a paragraph or two, but I'm not planning on writing a dissertation about it either.



It depends upon the person. I don't think arguing over apologetics is particularly useful, since everyone ends up with an emotional stake in their position and tends to get more entrenched. I dislike Craig more now than I did at the beginning of the thread, and have only gotten more shrill and angry about it.

For me, the arguments are mostly tools for thinking more clearly about this type of stuff, for figuring out what exactly it was that resonated with me in the first place, and why I don't think the alternatives work. They're useful for clearly away the cobwebs, so to speak. (Unfortunately, those cobwebs are not clear enough yet that I can write about any of it effectively!)



Hahaha, you want Plotinus and Hegel, then.

I appreciate the considered response. Most of these things will take extra reflection to see how I actually respond to them. Especially the principle of sufficient reason. My knee jerk reaction is the PSR is more a reflection of our own mental habits than of the universe. But I'm not sure.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I agree that my science education needs work, however I believe you're misunderstanding what my post said. I never said that Einstein set out to prove the big bang or the beginning of the universe. I said that he started out with the belief that the universe had no beginning. To be precise, I'm simply recalling what I read from his interview in Time magazine, but my memory is not what it used to be...

I would think that if God created everything when He spoke, then everything in the universe including the physics of the Universe would be applicable to theology.

At the time it was the prevailing view that the universe was static and eternal. Later it was discovered that the universe is in fact expanding and had a beginning at the big bang.

That's not really a failing of Einstein, that was more a failing of our scientific understanding 100 years ago.

 

[childeye 2]

At the time it was the prevailing view that the universe was static and eternal. Later it was discovered that the universe is in fact expanding and had a beginning at the big bang.

That's not really a failing of Einstein, that was more a failing of our scientific understanding 100 years ago.

Yes I know... Hubble. But I believe it is pertinent to this thread that an expanding universe and the indications of a universe with a beginning, means that the term God defined as the source of the energy of creation, makes that term a viable axiom.

The terms we use must be defined or we're not talking about the same things. I study semantics and in a true dichotomy it is unreasonable to declare that we came from nowhere or nothing because it is an all conclusive statement that does not allow for either deductive nor inductive reasoning. Hence the only alternative I can perceive is that the universe would have to be Eternal with no beginning, in which case the term God would still remain an axiom only ow referencing the universe, and subsequently this is also what Einstein had indicated that he believed.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes I know... Hubble. But I believe it is pertinent to this thread that an expanding universe and the indications of a universe with a beginning, means that the term God defined as the source of the energy of creation, makes that term a viable axiom.

Well, not really... Just because the universe had a beginning doesn't provide evidence for a god. You have a lot of work to do before you can make that leap.

The terms we use must be defined or we're not talking about the same things. I study semantics and in a true dichotomy it is unreasonable to declare that we came from nowhere or nothing because it is an all conclusive statement that does not allow for either deductive nor inductive reasoning. Hence the only alternative I can perceive is that the universe would have to be Eternal in which case the term God would remain an axiom referencing the universe, and this is also what Einstein had indicated that he believed.

I've never argued that we came from nowhere or nothing, and that's also not the prevailing scientific view either.

Apologists like throwing out the claim that atheists or scientists believe we popped out of nothing, however that's simply not a true statement. Any honest scientist or atheist would simply say we don't know where we came from. That is the only justifiable position we can currently hold until we find some evidence that sheds more light on the subject.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, plenty of people will hypothesize and research possible explanations, however virtually everyone would agree that nobody has solved that mystery yet. Hopefully we will one day.