Please try again. Only the Abrahamic religions (and Deism) teach that a God like the one described above brought all physical reality into existence from nothing. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. As I explained in subheader 1, the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, and personal. Since then it has garnered much attention from theists and atheists alike. There was an error submitting your subscription. William Lane Craig introduced the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) in 1979. If you keep falling asleep in class, it’s no surprise that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it’s time to do your essay. Of course we can claim it is true! The KCA is structured as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. ruby_alaska. The whole must have the same properties as the parts that make it up. As I explain in the above blog posts, we do in fact have powerful scientific evidence as well as philosophical arguments which show us that the whole of physical reality (space, time, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning. I kind of disagree with that. Once it is established that the universe a transcendent cause, the apologist (William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Lee Strobel, Myself) do a conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe. God is defined as a supernatural entity. mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the fallacy of equivocation cannot stand. I believe each objection can be satisfactorily answered so that one is justified in accepting the KCA. Good day, Mr Minton, I've happened to stumble upon your blog post on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and I seem to have a few objections which I don't think you have ever addressed, whether in that blog post or in the blog category. Hi i'm Josh and I am new to Atheist Republic. However, he doesn’t dispute the arguments. This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument. 1): 1. Abrahamic religions and Deism are consistent with this argument, but polytheistic, animistic, and pantheistic religions are not. I, nor has any proponent of this argument ever said, “Scientists can’t explain how the universe came into being, so it must be God” or anything of that sort. So what? 2. Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF. Example – “The universe began to exist” (Premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.) And hence, the proponents of this argument almost always employ additional arguments to reach their conclusions including the likes of Craig”. Your free resource is on the way! But if there was no infinite regression of creators begetting creators, then that logically brings us to an uncreated Creator, a Creator without beginning. I mean, if I am insane or intuiting on things I have frequently been incorrect on, or if there are necessary or empirical truths that overcome my intuition, or even if I have a competing intuition that I hold stronger than the original, then fine: I should abandon it. The claim of the first premise is “whatever begins to exist had a cause.” It’s often demonstrated by listing the causal principle “something cannot come from nothing,” or ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Answer: First, it should be noted that this is not an objection to either premise, and thus one could claim this and still believe the universe had a cause. But the point that I’m trying to make here and now is that The Kalam Cosmological Argument, by itself, is pretty damn trivial. This is somewhat akin to claiming philosophy and science don’t mix, which is surely impossible (how can anyone come to a scientific claim or know anything without applying reasoning to what has been observed?). Therefore, God is Chinese”. I don’t see why this is a problem, given the formulation of the argument. The… A contingent being exists. Arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Teleological argument attempt to show how a belief in God is likely and not a "bare assertion." There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. The Kalam Cosmological Fallacy: A Brief History of the Failures of Intuition SisyphusRedeemed. Answer: It’s true that one needs some level of empiricism in order to judge many things. The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. Thus, RR says that steps 2 and 3 of the argument employ the same words with different meanings. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. 1. It seems bizarre to say that because some claim is in the purview of science, one should not claim it as true. The multiverse, aliens, whatever. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” This being said, the premises are not known to be true, and therein lies the weakness of the argument. It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. Key Concepts: Terms in this set (40) Fallacy of composition. Gravity. That is true of some versions, but not all. I’ve given arguments for that above. Now, I would agree that our experience shows us that whenever something comes into being, it had a material cause as well as an efficient cause, thus rendering us with as much inductive evidence for material causation, but this inductive evidence can be overridden if we have powerful evidence that all physical reality came into being out of nothing a finite time ago. The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. In fact, the second premise (“the universe began to exist”) can be defended solely on rational argumentation. Relates to Worldly rather than spiritual matters. Hmm, sounds far more like the God of Christian theology and the Bible than any of the other alternatives, doesn’t it? The conceptual analysis part of the argument is being totally ignored by RR. RR says “they [Kalam proponents] assert that the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist and therefore it didn’t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception.”. 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. Draper raises several objections to Craig and Moreland’s Kalam argument: 1. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. However, let’s take a look at some of the properties: timeless, spaceless, changeless (logically prior to the Big Bang), immensely powerful, and the creator of the universe. Check your email. Example – “Science doesn’t know how life came from non life. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is or will be in both steps 2 and 3. The argument is fairly straightforward and enjoys intuitive support. That is one hell of a leap. If no one is justified in believing some metaphysical claim to be true unless a majority of philosophers accept it, then either no such majority will exist (because the vast majority will stick with this claim) or if such a majority exists it will be a “tipsy coachman” kind of group (where they are right for the wrong reasons). Every contingent being (including things infinitely old) has a cause of its existence b. There was an error submitting your subscription. Although it hadnumerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in therecent voluminous writings of William Lane Craig. Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) – Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent. The Universe began to exist. Moreover, The Bible credits Him with being the Creator of all physical reality (John 1:1-3). In the example of the chair, the final cause would be the purpose of sitting. Given that everything that has a beginning has something that caused it to come into being, and since Big Bang cosmology, the second law of thermodynamics, and the two arguments against actual infinites establish that the universe came into being out of nothing a finite time ago, it follows that a cause transcendent to matter, energy, space, and time must have caused matter, energy, space, and time (i.e the universe) to come into existence. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. Equivocation: Here is the Kalam Cosmological argument again: 1. Has RR even paid the slightest bit attention to apologists’ defenses of The Cosmological Argument? atized as follows : 2.10 If the universe did not begin to exist, then an infinite temporal regress of events exists. All Rights Reserved. This means that each Christian, and each person, is rationally justified in accepting the KCA. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. My face is hurting from all the facepalming I’ve been doing throughout watching this dude’s videos. How so? Yes, the syllogism by itself only gets you to “The universe had a cause”, but why take Christian Apologists to task for unpacking the implications of that conclusion with additional arguments? This being that is demonstrated to exist by this argument is consistent with The Christian God. In the first premise, it means literally everything that exists, whereas, in premise 2, it only refers to everything that American consumers purchase. It would be a bizarre form of atheism, indeed an atheism not worth the name, which admitted that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe who may (for all we know) also possess the properties listed by Dawkins. Answer: Again, it must be noted that this is not an objection to either premise and hence not the conclusion. However, in every defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument I’ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument stops. The fallacy to it is that if everything must have a cause then God must as well. “Whatever begins to exist had a cause.” God did not begin to exist. Design By Microhound. As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. And I didn’t just arbitrarily assign these attribute’s to the universe’s cause, I gave positive arguments for why the universe’s cause must have these attributes. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA. What is that? It is named after the kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated. The Special Pleading Fallacy occurs whenever you make an exception to an established rule without justification. It only asserts “Therefore, the universe has a cause”. The ancient philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are different types of causes. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. They are two main objections that i have for the kalam cosmological argument. Stretch and Challenge - The Kalam Cosmological Argument . One may reply the multiverse could be identical with Lewis’ plurality of worlds, so that every logically-possible world actually exists, and it was impossible that any such possible world fail to exist. The cause of the universe must be a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator. 3. What is the fallacy of equivocation? For God to come into being, His creator must have come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and so on back into infinity. He merely complains that this cause hasn’t also been shown to be omnipotent, omniscient, good, creative of design, listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts. A “material cause” is the stuff out of which something is made. RR’s objection is pretty damn trivial. Therefore, it may be argued that not only is jettisoning intuition wholesale unjustified, but actually irrational (by definition). Answer: This is a bit of an odd claim. A second type of cosmological argument, contending for a first orbeginning cause of the universe, has a venerable history, especiallyin the Islamic mutakalliman tradition. Las contradicciones filosóficas de la cosmovisión transgénero, El realismo modal, libre albedrío y el infinito actual en Dark. It is not the domain of natural theology to discuss, explicitly, the Christian God. STUDY. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance, a … 2) Premise: The Universe began to exist. It’s then the philosophy that takes over given this. The KCA does not have science itself do the metaphysical work; rather, it simply uses the best and most current science to show that the universe most likely had a finite beginning and does not avoid it. 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. It was popularized in the western world by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979). Nature did not begin to exist until The Big Bang. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)” which you can watch here. Hence, even if accepted, the argument doesn’t even remotely support theism.”. Well, how will we know if the reasoning behind this claim is telling us the whole story? Write. Arg from contingency (one version of Cosmo arg) a. Richard Dawkins made this same complaint about the argument. One must suppose that atheists continue to illegitimately accuse the Kalam of committing this fallacy because they just don’t pay attention when it is explained to them. ... "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" | William Lane Craig at Georgia Tech - Duration: 1:18:13. 1. The universe began to exist. Temporal. Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF. I’ve given one of them above. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation. The Bible describes God as spaceless (see 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6), timeless (1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), immaterial (John 4:24, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16), powerful (Psalm 62:11-12, Job 9:14, Matthew 19:26), uncaused (Psalm 90:2, Isaiah 57:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, Revelation 1:8), supernatural, and is a personal being (John 1:12, James 4:8). If that is true, then it seems that the KCA’s truth implies God–not just any God, but the God of the Bible! Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Timeless – Since time did not exist until The Big Bang, the cause cannot be inside of time. The question RR should be asking is not whether additional arguments are needed, but whether the additional arguments given are good. The classical Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God consistsof six statements: This first premise has two major flaws: 1) It assumes that things can begin to exist. Even Rationality Rules admits that Kalam proponents back up the assertion that the cause is uncaused by arguments, as you can see in the quotation above. Test. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. 4. 2. Second, the KCA does not rely entirely on science. William Lane Craig. RR says “And this brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. ‘The universe has a cause.’ The claim seems uncontroversial enough. An omnipotent entity. Each objection has been dealt with by providing an answer. What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… This is the formulation of the argument which I understand you to be using: 1. Check your email. This is patently false. And (B) we give arguments for that. Spaceless – Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be a spatial being. “Ad hoc!” one might cry. CrossExamined.org is a non-profit ministry started in 2006 that conducts dynamic I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist seminars on college campuses, churches, and high schools. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The Big Bang demonstrates just that. “Just because you intuit this doesn’t mean I do.” Fair enough. But they would be mistaken. When you do a conceptual analysis of what attributes or properties the universe’s cause must have, you do indeed end up with a being heavily resembling God. Sure, common-day objects such as tables and chairs "begin to exist" inthe sense that the arrangement of matter that people agree are "tables" and"chairs" begin to "exist" when someone arranges the matter in those preciseways. Perhaps RR is assuming The Mother Universe theory whereby The Big Bang was not the absolute origin of all material objects, but only the birth of one of many “baby” universes” that come into being inside of a much wider Mother Universe. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material. Craig formulates thekalām cosmological argument this way (in Craig and Smith1993: chap. This objection is just as underwhelming as the previous two. Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. However, most of these examples (such as a multiverse) can really best be described as objections to the second premise, not the application of the conclusion. The answer: because this is the kind of claim that can be reasoned out. Everything is made in China. Success!  Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” p. 158. But for this discussion, only efficient and material causes need to be distinguished. What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument? So we needn’t call the personal Creator of the universe “God” if Dawkins finds this unhelpful or misleading. Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. The application of the conclusion demands that the First Cause precede, logically, all else. This is not based on what we don’t know. Visit the Christian Apologetics Alliance Now >>, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist (Book). However, all proponents of The Kalam Cosmological Argument hold that (A) God is uncaused, uncreated. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fallacy of Composition April 26, 2017 Jonathan MS Pearce Patheos Explore the world's faith through … We aren’t given any argument as to why it’s really the case that a potentially-successful model for the beginning of the universe shows no finite beginning.