The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Athée]

I'm going to have to think about it some more. I see Craig's distinction, though I'm not sure you do.

Van Inwagen's BCCF applies to LCA but maybe not Kalaam because the assumption in Craig's Kalaam is more subdued than Leibniz. Leibniz's PSR applies to statements and propositions whereas Craig's only applies to "whatever comes into existence," so Craig seems to sidestep the BCCF objection. Craig doesn't rely on the extension to propositions (which I think I recall him saying he doesn't believe exist...side story though).

However, Craig's Kalaam clearly is relying on some version of a PSR, so I'm not so sure there isn't a similar objection lurking nearby.

Reading Craigs version it seems to me that he words it the way he does specifically to avoid that problem. Of course he smuggle in the category of things which begin to exist but have no cause without attempting to demonstrate this in anyway.

 

[anonymous person]

I think so, if we recognized it as machinery there must be some features that would lead us to suspect this, features that align well enough with how we view technology for us to see similarities. I think the abduction inference would be intelligence. I don't know how we rule out other humans, some secret program or another but if you want to state that in this thought experiment that no humans were nor could possibly have been there I think alien intelligence is more probable than a natural process.

And you are able to come to this conclusion without knowing anything whatsoever about this intelligence. You know nothing about where they are from, who they are, what they look like, how old they are, what they are, where they are now, etc. etc.

You can explain none of these things. They are a mystery to you and yet you still can rationally infer that this intelligence, whatever and whoever it may be, is the reason or cause for the machinery being in that cave on Mars.

This thought experiment highlights that philosophers of science, in recognizing a hypothesis as a good hypothesis, don't have to have an explanation of the hypothesis in order recognize it as the best hypothesis.

So the conclusion of the Kalam cannot be objected to on the grounds that we don't understand how the cause could create the universe, or what this cause is like, or the fact that the cause is mysterious to us. We don't have to be able to explain these things in order to recognize that the hypothesis that a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, personal agent caused the universe to come into being, is the best hypothesis. All of these things may be mysterious and beyond our power to comprehend and explain just like the whereabouts of the intelligence responsible for the machine parts on Mars.

Yet in both cases, this does not prevent us from rationally concluding that an intelligence is the cause.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I apologize everyone. Seeing how i am the OP and have been so busy the last few days. I promise i have not forgotten about you. I will respond in detail shortly.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Wow, now that was just an empty, meaningless, worthless and useless response.

Hey now....lets not resort to flamming.

 

[PapaZoom]

Hey now....lets not resort to flamming.

flaming? Hardly. Comment on the response, not the person. Besides, I just repeated his argumentation.

 

[Athée]

This thought experiment highlights that philosophers of science, in recognizing a hypothesis as a good hypothesis, don't have to have an explanation of the hypothesis in order recognize it as the best hypothesis.

So far so good.

So the conclusion of the Kalam cannot be objected to on the grounds that we don't understand how the cause could create the universe, or what this cause is like, or the fact that the cause is mysterious to us.

But that is not why I object to the Kalam. It's not that we don't understand how a god could create the universe it's that the idea of there being a cause outside if space and time or a being that exists outside of time is incoherent. It is like saying the reason math works in this universe is because circles are square.

We don't have to be able to explain these things in order to recognize that the hypothesis that a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, personal agent caused the universe to come into being, is the best hypothesis

Do you see that you have made a huge unsubstantiated leap here. You get from, it seems likely that the universe had a cause all the way to an imaterial, trancendent, timeless personal intelligent agent of imense power, with zero justification.

All of these things may be mysterious and beyond our power to comprehend and explain just like the whereabouts of the intelligence responsible for the machine parts on Mars.

Yet in both cases, this does not prevent us from rationally concluding that an intelligence is the cause.

Again this is not at all analogous. In the though experiment you were careful to rule out humans as a possible source for those things, leaving another intelligence as the likely cause. We are justified in that situation because we can suppose that while we have never seen other intelligence like us, that since we exist it is possible that other exist as well. We have no such justification for asserting a god because none have ever been confirmed to exist.
Finally the other major problem with your epistemology here is that if you are consistent you are required to accept any "just so" story that someone proposes. If I said that the reason the universe exists is so that an evil god can mess with us, it accounts for all the datalk just ad well as your hypothesis and in fact it does a better job in many ways. By your logic it must therfore be true. We could do the same thing with the problem of consciousness and propose invisible conscious fairies that just happen to explain exactly all that we know about consiousness, again if your criteria is that it explain the data then such a theory must also be accepted.

This faith based epistemology leads to absurdities and contradictions, by setting the evidential bar so low it is true that the god hypothesis is able to slink over, but so does everything else.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So the conclusion of the Kalam cannot be objected to on the grounds that we don't understand how the cause could create the universe, or what this cause is like, or the fact that the cause is mysterious to us.

The Kalam is not rejected because we don't understand the cause. The Kalam is rejected is because it is logically invalid, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread.

We don't have to be able to explain these things in order to recognize that the hypothesis that a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, personal agent caused the universe to come into being, is the best hypothesis.

The hypothesis that a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful personal agent created the universe is one of many hypotheses about the cause of the universe.

The problem is that you jump from "one of many possible causes" to "therefore proven to be the best possible hypothesis". What is your evidence that this is the best possible hypothesis? So far the only evidence you have given is the word of uninformed sheep herders from centuries ago. Do you have any other reasons for accepting this as the best hypothesis?

 

[anonymous person]

The Kalam is not rejected because we don't understand the cause. The Kalam is rejected is because it is logically invalid, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread.

The hypothesis that a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful personal agent created the universe is one of many hypotheses about the cause of the universe.

The problem is that you jump from "one of many possible causes" to "therefore proven to be the best possible hypothesis". What is your evidence that this is the best possible hypothesis? So far the only evidence you have given is the word of uninformed sheep herders from centuries ago. Do you have any other reasons for accepting this as the best hypothesis?

And yet centuries ago, in fact, millenia ago, Moses the "uninformed sheep herder" knew the universe had a beginning, something that brilliant scientists with all of their knowledge and technology have just recently discovered in the last century.

For millenia, even up until the 20th century, it was largely believed that the universe was simply eternal, that it had no beginning. And yet here we find old Moses, a humble sheep herder as you so despisingly call him, telling us the universe had a beginning.

This in itself is a clue to the divine inspiration of the Genesis account. Of course God has given you the room to wiggle and explain it away as coincidence if you do not want to accept the implication. So too I shall leave you the room.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The BCCF is appealed to in discussions on the Leibnizian Cosmological argument and I don't think Inwagen's points present any insurmountable difficulties to Dr. Craig's formulation of the argument.

The Kalam is a different argument than the LCA though. The Kalam concludes to an uncaused cause of the universe, while the LCA concludes to a self-explanatory being. The distinction is often confused even by philosophers.

I'm going to have to think about it some more. I see Craig's distinction, though I'm not sure you do.

Van Inwagen's BCCF applies to LCA but maybe not Kalaam because the assumption in Craig's Kalaam is more subdued than Leibniz. Leibniz's PSR applies to statements and propositions whereas Craig's only applies to "whatever comes into existence," so Craig seems to sidestep the BCCF objection. Craig doesn't rely on the extension to propositions (which I think I recall him saying he doesn't believe exist...side story though).

However, Craig's Kalaam clearly is relying on some version of a PSR, so I'm not so sure there isn't a similar objection lurking nearby.

If "whatever begins to exist has a cause," then would the set of everything that begins to exist also have a beginning and thus also have a cause?

 

[-57]

1. why?

2. what does "always" mean, assuming a space-time continuum doesn't exist?

I was talking about the initial...first cause.

 

[Athée]

And yet centuries ago, in fact, millenia ago, Moses the "uninformed sheep herder" knew the universe had a beginning, something that brilliant scientists with all of their knowledge and technology have just recently discovered in the last century.

For millenia, even up until the 20th century, it was largely believed that the universe was simply eternal, that it had no beginning. And yet here we find old Moses, a humble sheep herder as you so despisingly call him, telling us the universe had a beginning.

This in itself is a clue to the divine inspiration of the Genesis account. Of course God has given you the room to wiggle and explain it away as coincidence if you do not want to accept the implication. So too I shall leave you the room.

Are you arguing that the Bible is in fact scientifically accurate in what it presents because it was inspired/written by a god, who would of course transcend the cultural understanding at the time the bible was written?

 

[-57]

Are you arguing that the Bible is in fact scientifically accurate in what it presents because it was inspired/written by a god,

I would say that could very well be a true statement.

who would of course transcend the cultural understanding at the time the bible was written?

God still transcends the cultural understanding of science today. Some things we figured out...or, thought we figured out only to learn we have been mistaken.

 

[Athée]

I would say that could very well be a true statement.

God still transcends the cultural understanding of science today. Some things we figured out...or, thought we figured out only to learn we have been mistaken.

So there are simple ways to demonstrate this is not the case. An easy one is that the Bible says that bats are birds (level 11: 13-19). That makes total sense if an ancient person without modern taxonomy wrote it but no sense at all if a god wrote it. Bats are not birds. So my guess is that you are going to have to be selective, things like the above are going to be put in the category of human error or humans doing the best they could to understand the message god was giving them etc. On the other hand, things that seem to line up with science you will credit to God's knowledge and inspiration. How do you justify such selection, doesn't it seem a bit disengenuous to count the hits and ignore the misses?

 

[doubtingmerle]

And yet centuries ago, in fact, millenia ago, Moses the "uninformed sheep herder" knew the universe had a beginning, something that brilliant scientists with all of their knowledge and technology have just recently discovered in the last century.

And centuries ago the writer of the Quran used a female pronoun for a certain insect activity, which science has later found to indeed be female, so therefore the Quran presents marvelous science truths as inspired by God? That is an argument I once heard from a Muslim. I bet you can see right through that argument, yes? You are not going to rush out and buy a Quran and live by it because of this, I assume. If you can see through that argument, can you perhaps see that I am not impressed by the understanding that Genesis thought the universe had a beginning.

The beginning described in Genesis is very different from the beginning that the scientific evidence points to. Compare Genesis 1 with any good science text on the matter.

 

[-57]

So there are simple ways to demonstrate this is not the case. An easy one is that the Bible says that bats are birds (level 11: 13-19). That makes total sense if an ancient person without modern taxonomy wrote it but no sense at all if a god wrote it. Bats are not birds. So my guess is that you are going to have to be selective, things like the above are going to be put in the category of human error or humans doing the best they could to understand the message god was giving them etc. On the other hand, things that seem to line up with science you will credit to God's knowledge and inspiration. How do you justify such selection, doesn't it seem a bit disengenuous to count the hits and ignore the misses?

Or God could have meant..."covering with wings"...which would include birds.

I'm pretty sure the people of that day had caught a bat or two and understood they wern't birds. Or do you think they were ignorant of that fact?

 

[anonymous person]

And centuries ago the writer of the Quran used a female pronoun for a certain insect activity, which science has later found to indeed be female, so therefore the Quran presents marvelous science truths as inspired by God? That is an argument I once heard from a Muslim. I bet you can see right through that argument, yes? You are not going to rush out and buy a Quran and live by it because of this, I assume. If you can see through that argument, can you perhaps see that I am not impressed by the understanding that Genesis thought the universe had a beginning.

The beginning described in Genesis is very different from the beginning that the scientific evidence points to. Compare Genesis 1 with any good science text on the matter.

Im not going to rush out and by the Quran because I have one and have studied it in depth.

Secondly, the scientific evidence points to an absolute beginning of all matter, energy, and the spacetime manifold itself some 16 billion years ago. Exactly what Genesis 1:1 describes.

Thirdly, I am not a follower of Christ because the Genesis account of creation is supported by scientific findings. I appealed to the fact that it is for your benefit, not as some sort of appeal to why I am a Christian. Such evidence is but a mere part of a comprehensive and cumulative case for Christianity.

Fourthly, I have no trouble with the notion that there are things in the Quran that may indeed owe their existence to the work of one inspired by a supernatural entity. Such an entity is not God however, but is demonic.

 

[-57]

The beginning described in Genesis is very different from the beginning that the scientific evidence points to. Compare Genesis 1 with any good science text on the matter.

What do you mean by good science? A theory of origins that requires 90 some % of a stuff that we can't see...or find because it's dark?

 

[Athée]

Or God could have meant..."covering with wings"...which would include birds.

I'm pretty sure the people of that day had caught a bat or two and understood they wern't birds. Or do you think they were ignorant of that fact?

So there are lots of examples of stuff like this, I was just giving a simple one. To explain away even a simple one you had to change the text to say something it doesn't...it says birds. Or perhaps you are saying that god inspired the writer to write something like, of the things with wings that fly but are not insects here are the ones you shall not eat, but that the inspired human author got it wrong?


Edited to add:

Since you didn't mention my critique about cherry picking I asume you to be arguing that no such cherry picking is required, that all the information in the bible can be confirmed as accurate. Is that correct?

 

[Athée]

What do you mean by good science? A theory of origins that requires 90 some % of a stuff that we can't see...or find because it's dark?

Wait a minute, so it's good science and evidence that the Bible is true when modern cosmology ppints to a beginning for the universe, but all of a sudden not good science when biology (and a host of other disciplines) confirm an evolutionary account that doesn't like up with Genesis? Why the double standard?

 

[-57]

So there are lots of examples of stuff like this, I was just giving a simple one. To explain away even a simple one you had to change the text to say something it doesn't...it says birds. Or perhaps you are saying that god inspired the writer to write something like, of the things with wings that fly but are not insects here are the ones you shall not eat, but that the inspired human author got it wrong?


Edited to add:

Since you didn't mention my critique about cherry picking I asume you to be arguing that no such cherry picking is required, that all the information in the bible can be confirmed as accurate. Is that correct?

Once again I have to ask...do you think the people of that time period were so ignorant that they have never seen a bat up close?
Did the human authors get it wrong...No. It appears you have gotten it wrong. It appears you have misunderstood what the intention of the verse is about.