INTRODUCTION
The argument for the existence of GOD that made William Lane Craig famous is the Kalam Cosmological argument. This blog post will not be an analysis of the history behind the Kalam Cosmological argument, as that is – at least in my view – not very important. The Kalam Cosmological argument I will now present, is mostly the same as Craig presents it, though I have slightly tweaked some things to make it more of a text of my own, rather than just a transcript of Dr Craig’s famous opening statement (which is nearly always the same, and virtually always includes the Kalam Cosmological argument). Now, with no further discussion required: the Kalam Cosmological argument.
ASSUMPTIONS
In principle, the Kalam Cosmological Argument only assumes that one can trust logical reasoning, and that the universe exists. According to Prof Craig, the KCA additionally assumes the A Theory of Time (which is one of 2 metaphysical theories of time: A and B). Yet some philosophers, like Benjamin Victor Waters, disagree and say the KCA does not necessarily require the A Theory of Time (see Walters article "Toward a new kalām cosmological argument", Cogent Arts and Humanities, 2 (1): 1–8). Considering the fact that Craig is a world authority on the KCA, and a well learned philosopher of time, I shall take Craig's position that the KCA assumes the A theory of Time. Thus, I shall be presenting the KCA in the A theory of time point of view. The vast majority of people, both common and academic, hold to the A theory of time anyway. If the reader, for whatever reason, holds to the B theory of time, I suggest replacing the KCA with the neo-Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, also available on this blog.
THE ARGUMENT
The famous Kalam Cosmological argument can, at its core, be summarised as three premises:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Three phrases need to be clarified here: causation, universe, and beginning to exist.
Here, "universe" means the entirety of the physical world, thus all physical time, space and matter. So if one believes in a multi-verse (which means that the universe exists of several 'sub-universes'), that is included in the word "universe".
Regarding causation, no specific metaphysical theory of causation is assumed: the KCA works for any logically coherent theory of causation.
Finally, regarding beginning to exist, it should be noted that in the (unique) case one would want to deny the beginning of the universe, this argument can be adapted to mean not the actual beginning of the universe, but simply the first event that took place in the universe. For example, many speculative theories in theoretical cosmology argue that the universe could be eternal if the universe was in a quantum state and that at some point the universe transitioned into the classical space-time as the universe is today. But changing from a quantum state to classical space-time is - from the perspective of the KCA - exactly the beginning of the universe. After all, such an would be the first event in time prior to which there is an 'eternity containing no events' (so to speak; an eternity of no events implies no accumulation of time, and thus is completely irrelevant to the KCA).
I will now first discuss the second premise, and then discuss the first premise, because that way I can keep this post flowing more naturally (ironically).
NOTE: The main point of this particular post is to first the overview of the Kalam Cosmoligcal argument. I will discuss and analyse each of the above three premises with their respective objections more deeply in later sub-posts, which you can select in the MENU on the right side of the screen: these posts are presented in the menu as "sub-posts".
PREMISE 2 – AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE?
One of the deepest questions in philosophy is why the universe exists at all, instead of just nothing. In the past, atheists have said that the universe is eternal, and thus uncaused. There are many cosmological theories on an eternal universe, though none seem to have been universally accepted among cosmologists. But what cosmologists think on this matter is of little relevance if one can address this issue from the standpoint of pure logic. As stated earlier, if something is impossible logically, it is definitely impossible in nature.
Here is a mathematical reason for thinking the universe cannot have existed for ever. A universe without a beginning that has existed logically requires it to have existed for an infinite number of hours, years, millennia, etc. Yet, an actually real infinite number of things in the physical world (like an infinite number of events in the past) is mathematically contradictory. The best illustration of this is the so-called Hilberts Hotel, named after David Hilbert (one of the most influential mathematicians of recent decades). However, this example is way too long for such a brief analysis (just google it), and so here is a shorter, but similar illustration, often given by Craig himself. So, suppose you would have an infinite number of coins. And you give me one coin. How many coins do you have left? Well, you would still have an infinite number of coins. Infinity – 1 = infinity. Now suppose you again have an infinite number of coins, and you give me all the odd numbered coins. How many coins would you have left? Well, you would have: Infinity – infinity = infinity. Now suppose you give me all your coins. Now, how coins do you have left? Answer: Infinity-infinity=0. When one takes an infinite number of coins from an infinity number of coins, you get different, self-contradictory answers. In fact, with “infinity – infinity = x”, “x” can range from zero all the way to infinity. As David Hilbert himself said: “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought” (On the infinite, by David Hilbert, 1964. Part of: Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings). Please note: this argument does not deny the mathematical use of the infinite. It merely states an actual infinity does not exist in the real physical world. One can say there is no infinity as one can say that there truly are humans on planet earth. Now, an eternal universe has an infinite number of events in its past (i.e. infinite number of years). But since this mathematical argument shows an infinite number of things cannot exist in physical reality, the universe cannot be eternal. Note that I am still assuming the A theory of time in all of this.
There are more reasons to think the universe is not eternal, but those can be found in the sub-post on premise 2 (see menu on the right). Also, For objections on the first premise, see the sub-post “premise 1” on the right side menu under “Kalam Cosmoligcal Argument (Overview)”.
PREMISE 1 – SOMETHING FROM NOTHING?
If the universe began to exist, that raises one very important question: where did the universe come from? There must have been a cause that brought the universe into being. It is ridiculous to state that universe popped into being with absolutely NO cause. For, if nothing could create the universe, why does it not create, say, like a horse just here right now? What makes nothingness so discriminatory?! Well, obviously “nothing” cannot discriminate. Nothing is the absence of something, and thus has no powers and no potentialities. As David Hughmes (an 18th century atheist philosopher who still has many atheist fans today) wrote to John Stewart:
“But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause: I only maintain’d, that our Certainty of the Falshood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration; but from another Source.” (ref.: “David Hume to John Stewart, February 1754”, in The Letters of David Hume, ed. J. Y. T. Greig, Oxford – Clarendon Press, 1932, volume 1, page 187.)
This leaves one unavoidable question: What caused the universe to exist?
For objections on this first premise, see the sub-post “premise 1” on the right side menu under “Kalam Cosmoligcal Argument (Overview)”.
THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT – CONCLUSION
The Kalam Cosmological argument can thus far be summarized as follows:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe (or: multi-verse) began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe/multi-verse has a cause.
Thus, the universe (or multiverse) has a cause. Since any entity cannot create itself, this means the cause must be outside of, and beyond all time, space and matter. There only two types of things that fit that description: Abstract objects (i.e. numbers), or a transcendent mind. However, abstract objects do not cause anything. Therefore, it follows logically that the cause of the universe was a transcendent mind. It goes even deeper than just that, however. One can reasonably argue that this mind is an agent, a person. For, in order to create a universe, one must make certain choices. This transcendent mind must choose to create a universe in the first place, as well as choose what laws will govern this universe, and which values and constants the forces of nature will bear, and so on. This requires the transcended mind to be able to choose. The ability to choose freely is the fundamental property of an agent or a personhood.
Therefore, it follows that the transcendent mind is a personal mind.
THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: SUMMARY
In short, the Kalam Cosmological argument goes as follows:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
C1: Since universe=all time, space and matter, the cause must be beyond all time, space and matter – for something cannot create itself.
C2: Only two type of things are beyond all time, space and matter: abstract objects (i.e. numbers) or else transcendent minds.
C3: Abstract objects do no stand in causal relationships (numbers, for example, do not actually ‘cause’ anything). > The cause must be a transcendent mind.
C4: Creation requires choices; the ability to make choices is the fundamental principle of a personhood. > The transcendent mind is personal.
C5: Therefore, a transcendent personal mind exists. This is what is traditionally called “GOD”.
OBJECTIONS TO THE ARGUMENT AS A WHOLE
Any objection one might have against the Kalam Cosmological argument should be addressed to one of the premises. Such objections will be dealt with in the three posts that follow this one (you could have guessed this: see menu on the right). But sometimes a more general objection is made against the argument as a whole. From this point onward within this post, objections of this latter kind will be addressed.
Everything we know may be false/everything is just speculation
One objection I heard recently is that the entire argument is just sheer speculation: “We don’t know everything; maybe one day we find out that everything we thought is wrong. Everything is just speculation”. I would say several things in response. To say that the argument is sheer speculation is just plainly false. The argument is based on what we DO know, not on what we do not know. With respect to the objection of the lack of omniscience, I would say that one has to choose what is more likely. It seems far more probable that the universe had a cause, than that it just popped into being out of nothing. Furthermore, if an atheist denies mathematics and logic, it is easy for me to say atheism is thus - at least for that particular person - illogical. Finally, with this objection, one does not only object to the Kalam Cosmological argument, but to all of science.
Another objection to the cosmological arguments is that the argument-giver is using the conclusion to work towards GOD. The problem, however, is that not only the argument itself contains deductive reasoning, but also the conclusion is deductive reasoning. Like all other deductive arguments, it counts that if the premises are true, the conclusions is undeniable. Thus, also this objection fails.
Daniel Dennett's objection
Daniel Dennett criticises the use of logic (!) on the universe, because this logic has never been “tested” outside of the universe. The problem with this objection is that Dennett uses the word “logic” as if it is a law of nature. However, logic is not limited to the physical world. Logic is a law of reality. If logic is not ultimately true, than all reasoning fails.
The KCA is based on the Big Bang theory
Some say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on the Big Bang theory. And thus, they reason that since the Big Bang theory is not 100% proven, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is also not 100% proven. This objection is a fatal mistake. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, in its present form (more or less), has existed for the past +/- 1000 years! The Big Bang theory did not exist 1000 years ago, so - obviously - the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not based on the Big Bang theory. One will find that the Big Bang theory is not even really discussed in these posts regarding the KCA. In fact, the Kalam Cosmological argument can be argued for without appealing to ANY empirical data. All one needs, is pure logic and its applications (like mathematics and analytic philosophy). I know from experience that this pure logic approach bothers some people. For those people, there is no escape of being accused of being illogical.
The KCA is based on a dualistic(!) view of the mind
Some argue that since the Kalam Cosmological argument concludes a disembodied mind exists, it therefore is based on a dualistic view of the mind. They continue to argue that since this view is false, the KCA is also false. This objection has multiple mistakes.
1) A Dualistic mind view is about the relation between the brain (the body) and the mind. The Kalam Cosmological argument has nothing to do with brains and bodies or human neurology in general. These are physical things, the KCA is about what is beyond the physical world.
2) A Dualistic mind view is a neurological discussion, with has got absolutely nothing to do with the KCA.
The KCA is based on a disembodied(!) view of the mind
Some argue that since the Kalam Cosmological argument concludes a disembodied mind exists, it therefore is based on a disembodied view of the mind. They continue to argue that since this view is cannot be shown to be true, the KCA is also false. This objection is of such an elementary mistake, I cannot believe people actually argue this way. But they do... Now, The Kalam Cosmological argument is not BASED on a disembodiment view of the mind; rather it CONCLUDES it. And since the KCA is a DEDUCTIVE argument, if the premises are true and they follow each other as a chain of logic, the conclusion cannot be denied. To deny a deductive reasoning is like denying that 2+2 equals 4.
The KCA argument is based on Divine Psychology
Some philosophers, like philosopher Kevin Sharp, have pointed out that most arguments for GOD rely on Divine psychology: that is to say, many arguments are based on speculations on what GOD would or would not do. Some philosophers would discredit the KCA based on divine psychology. The argument is that it is unknown whether GOD would want to create a universe in the first place, whereas the KCA assumes that to be true. I think this argument is not very good. First of all, as stated many times now, the kalam cosmological argument does NOT ASSUME anything about GOD, but rather CONCLUDES it. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a DEDUCTIVE argument: if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be rationally denied. Now, obviously, the universe exists, and there are no assumptions about GOD's intention. But since the KCA CONCLUDES that GOD exists and that HE created the universe, one could CONCLUDE that GOD would want there to be a universe, but this is NOT an assumption of the argument. Instead, the argument merely answers the question WHY the universe exists.
The KCA invokes a temporal phenomenon (namely causation) to explain time itself
It is certainly true that in physical interactions, causes precede their effects by some timely duration. In non-physical interactions, like the creation of the physical world itself (which is an event not physical itself for that would mean physical things existed before they existed), only logical inquiries are relevant (as I have stated far too many times). Logically, causes do not need to precede their effects. If the moment of causation is t1 and its effective moment is t2, logic only dictates that t1 is smaller than or equal to t2. Thus causes and effects can be simultaneous, at least abstractly. Of course, effects cannot precede their causes (strictly logically speaking). Remember that all this is stated assuming the A theory of time is true.
The KCA is too simple
I have heard this once as an objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But this is not an objection, it is a compliment! As it is said: Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. One should always search for the simplest explanation that has the greatest explanatory scope and power. Being too simple can only be a good thing, provided it has sufficient explanatory scope and power. Since the Kalam Cosmoligical Argument is a deductive argument, this is easy to check: if the premises are true, the conclusions follows logically and necessarily. Anyway, this is not an objection but a compliment to the KCA. So say "thank you".
Not many objections attack the Kalam Cosmological argument as a whole. Objections that attack one specific premise, however, are abundant and cannot be added in this post. See the sub-posts of the Kalam Cosmological argument (yes, menu on the right, folks) for more objections against - and a more in-depth discussion of - the Kalam Cosmological argument.
Thank you for taking your time to read this post; This was my first post here on Google-sites, and I hope you enjoyed it.
- Tony.