BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT PART 4
This is the last post on the series of Brief analysis of the Kalam cosmological argument (I think). This post will discuss premise three (“therefore, the universe has a cause”) and the conclusion of the Kalam cosmological argument.
Recall that 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.
This cause is a timeless, space-less, immaterial, transcendent personal mind with unimaginable power. This is what is traditionally called “GOD”.
WHY?
Premise three is simply the conclusion that follows the previous three premises. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a deductive argument; if the two previous premises are true, and the premises follow each other like a chain reaction of formal logic, one cannot deny the third premise. To deny that is to deny formal logic itself.
How about the conclusion? Must the cause of the universe really be transcendent? Well, yes, of course. What else is outside of time, space and matter and is not abstract? One might say that there may be something else outside of time, space and matter and is not abstract not transcendent, but something else. This, however, would be referring to the unknown and probably also the illogical. One might also say that the universe itself is everything including abstract things. Yet, there is a difference between physical entities that make up time, space and matter, and entities that are not physical and are not part of time, space and matter. The following should also be noted: Christianity does NOT teach GOD created “everything”, it teaches that GOD created time, space, and matter and all that in them is (as well as some spiritual things like angels, but that is not relevant here). GOD created all but himself.
Now, what is nice is that if one would teach that the universe is everything, that would also mean that no atheist can accuse any believer of using the “GOD-of-the-gaps-theorem”. After all, GOD would in such a case be part of the universe – part of the natural reality – and therefore GOD itself would be allowed gap filler as much natural explanations would be normally. Of course, I do not think the universe equates everything.
WHAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE
One objection is that something called “nothing” created the universe.
If that would be the case, “nothingness” would have the following properties:
1) Nothingness would be transcendent. That is to say: beyond time, space and matter. For, nothing supposedly created time, space, and matter.
2) Nothingness would be some kind of person or agent, since it has the ability to choose to create a specific universe with specific properties.
This is not truly nothing anymore. One is just giving the theistic GOD the name “nothing”.
Another objection is that the universe created itself. This is what Prof Daniel Dennett stated during his debate with Prof Allister McGrath (yes, not making this up). However, if the universe created itself, it had to exist before it existed. This is illogical, and therefore no good alternative. The fact that a high-ranking philosopher like Prof Dennett is willing to go so far as to go the route of illogicality just to avoid the conclusion that GOD exists, is actually quite scary.
THE UNIVERSE’S EXISTENCE IS A NECESSITY
An easy to find solution to the cosmological argument would be to say that the universe itself is a necessity. The problem, however, is that the universe cannot possibly be a necessity. Things that exist necessarily cannot have a cause. Therefore, they cannot have a beginning. After all, whatever begins to exist has a cause (see premise one of the Kalam Cosmological argument). Yet, the Universe does have a beginning, and therefore it has a cause, and therefore it cannot be a necessity.
WHY MONOTHEISM INSTEAD OF POLYTHEISM
In polytheism there is not “one cause” of the universe, instead, each “poly-God” is part of the universe itself. So there is for example a “God” for the wind, another for the seas, and so on. These are “Gods” are not the same as a monotheistic GOD. The monotheistic GOD is something that lies beyond time, space and matter. It transcends time, space and matter, and so the universe over all. Polytheistic “Gods” are not some multiplications of a monotheistic GOD; instead they are completely different things.
However, one could still ask the question, if it is not possible that there is more than one monotheistic GOD. The answer is that one should always look for the simplest possible answer. That is not something that only counts in natural sciences, but in ALL sciences including philosophy. One should therefore try to be a minimalist when making conclusions of arguments. In this case, that would mean one should find the least amount of “Gods” as possible. Since both cosmological arguments discussed in this book conclude that there is at least one GOD, we should stick with that unless and until we have a reason to think there is more than one GOD.
How about the possibility that there is a GOD above “our” GOD? The answer is quite simple. Namely, when a Jew or Christian says “GOD”, we mean that which is the greatest logically possible being. If you can think anything GREATER than GOD, than THAT would be GOD.
Some say it is incomprehensible to think of something that is outside of time, space and matter. And my reaction would be: So what?! Nobody said GOD’s character could fit in our small human brain. Formal logic is also beyond time, space, and matter. Try to comprehend formal logic in and of itself!
THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER NONSENSE
There is this talk on the internet about the "Fying spaghetti monster", and atheists ask why one should believe in GOD, and not in the flying spaghetti monster. I always though only stupid people would take that talk seriously. I was wrong. So, why should one conclude GOD's existence from the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and not something like the flying spaghetti monster? Well, what is the flying spaghetti monster? First of all spaghetti, flying or not flying, is composed of proteins and other stuff. It is, by all accounts, PHYSICAL. The words "flying" and "monster" also indicate this thing is physical. This immediately removes it from the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological argument.
WHO CREATED GOD
According to the argument, the universe must have a cause, and this cause comes from GOD. However, some say it is special pleading to say that GOD created the universe, while GOD does not have an explanation for HIS existence. But it is not special pleading, because GOD is outside of time, space and matter, and therefore did not begin to exist. GOD is eternal, and thus has no need for a cause of HIS existence. GOD’s existence is a necessity.
Some atheists seem to have a problem with an eternal GOD, but not with an eternal universe, even though we know from science and even from pure mathematics that the universe CANNOT be eternal. Ironic, right?
On top of all this, also note that in order to recognize that a specific explanation is the best, one does not need an explanation for that explanation. Otherwise, science would be destroyed: not a single explanation would be accepted, since there are always unknowns in science and therefore there are always explanations missing for those explanations.
THE KCA IMPLIES AN INFINITY REGRESS OF DETERMINATION
In his debate with William Lane Craig, Bruce Russell commented that if GOD chose to create the universe, GOD must have been determined by an outside force. That outside force itself must have been determined by another outside force to be determined, and so on. As I think most people will be able to see right away, this reasoning is purely based on determinism, which is a naturalistic principle that everything is determined. With other words: if GOD is determined by an outside force, you get an infinite regress of determinations. Here is my initial response: "EXACTLY!!!" If everything is determined, nothing can happen because every decision needs a prior determining condition, which requires a prior determining condition, and so on. But, obviously, something HAS happened: the universe exists, I am writing this blog, Donald Trump has become president of the USA (unfortunately), and so on. So obviously, things have happened, which gives the logical conclusion that an infinite regress of determination has not happened, which in turn gives the logical conclusion that obviously there is at least one initial undetermined agent. Thus, this objection ends up giving extra logical support for the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as well as proving that the complete absence of freewill leads to an impossible infinite regress of determination, which is logically impossible and so there must be some form of freewill somewhere.
This is of course a principle meant for the physical world, not GOD. Moreover, there is no reason to think GOD is determined. In fact, if GOD is determined, everything is determined, and if.
YOU DON'T NEED CONSCIOUSNESS FOR A CAUSE
The KCA argues that the cause of the universe (assuming the A theory of time, of course) is some kind of person, in the sense that it had to make a choice. Some respond by saying something along the lines of "but all manner things happen without a conscious choice happening, so why is the cause of the universe an exception?" Although it should be fairly obvious why this response isn't very good, I will respond to it nonetheless. The difference between, say, the weather changing without someone (human or otherwise) making a conscious choice, and the creation of the universe is clearly the following: All manner of things that happen inside the universe have some kind of pre-existing physical cause that determines its effect. This is not the case for the creation of the entire space-time reality, since there cannot be physical causes if there does not exist a physical world.
THE KCA DOES NOT EXPLAIN EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE PROPERTY GOD IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO SOME ARBITRARY RELIGION
The KCA, admittedly, does not show that GOD is good instead of evil, or cares about human beings (in a good, bad, or ambiguous manner), nor does it show some other properties GOD is supposed to have. But why should I care? As was pointed out multiple times, the KCA, at least in the manner I'm using it in this blog, is a deductive argument, so if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot rationally be denied. If one grants the premises of the KCA, a rational person will have to conclude that it is more probable than not that a timeless, spaceless, all-powerful, immaterial entity exists that is the reason for the existence of the universe. One cannot say "The KCA does not show that this entity also happens to have certain properties I would like it to have, therefore I will arbitrarily deny the very existence of this entity in the first place"; such a statement would be irrational.
SHEER SPECULATION
Some say that the Kalam cosmological argument is just sheer speculation. “We don’t know everything. Maybe one day, we’ll find out that everything we know is wrong”, some say. The problem with this objection is that the Kalam cosmological argument is NOT speculation; it is NOT based on what we don’t know, it is based on what we DO know. Furthermore, the scenario that everything we know is wrong in exceptionally unlikely - especially in terms of formal logic. Thus, the conclusion of the Kalam cosmological argument by far remains the most reasonable conclusion.
Undoubtedly, one can think of more objections, but this series was meant to be a brief analysis, and, hopefully, the most common objections have been tackled in these blog post.
I hope you enjoyed reading this first series.
Note: If new, relevant information comes available to me, these posts will be kept updated.