37
The Cosmological Argument Grounding the Kalam
The Cosmological Argument
Grounding the Kalam
Any argument that starts with the "cosmos" or world
Defining the Cosmological Argument
A posteriori argument (vs. a priori argument)
Concludes in a cause for the cosmos.
Defining the Cosmological Argument
Three main families:1. From ordered causes (Thomas Aquinas)2. From temporal causes (William Lane Craig)3. From the principle of sufficient reason (Gottfried Leibniz)
Defining the Cosmological Argument
Due to the popularity of William Lane Craig, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has become extremely popular and nearly synonymous with the term "Cosmological Argument"
THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
The Necessity of a First Cause
1. That which comes into existence must have a cause2. The universe came into existence3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
The Nature of the First Cause: 1. The universe is the complete set of things in the space-time continuum2. The cause of a thing cannot be a part of the thing itself3. Therefore, the cause of the universe cannot be a part of the space-time continuum
THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
1. That which comes into existence must have a cause
No cause: Experientially absurd. "From nothing, nothing comes"
Three Possibilities:
No Cause Self-Caused External Cause
Self-cause: self-contradictory - would have to exist to produce itselfExternal cause: only possible answer, and lines up with our experienceNecessarily true principle
Explaining the KCA
Explaining the KCA1. That which comes into existence must have a cause2. The universe came into existence
Big Bang / Expansion of the Universe
Lack of Heat Death
Scientific Fact
Explaining the KCA1. That which comes into existence must have a cause2. The universe came into existence3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Traditional ObjectionsDoesn't tell us anything about the cause!
Is it personal or impersonal? Couldn't it just be a multiverse?
Is it moral, immoral, or amoral?Is it the god of any particular religion, which one, and how would you know?
1. That which comes into existence must have a cause
“Everything must have a cause”What caused God?
God is not the kind of thing that comes into existence
Traditional Objections
Thus, the two types can be reduced to God and everything else,. So (1) can be restated, "Everything other than God has a cause," which is an example of circular reasoning, since it "defines God into existence."
What doesn't come into existence other than God?Total set of NBE = God
Implies two types of objects: Those that begin to exist (BE) and those that do not begin to exist (NBE).
Traditional Objections
1. That which comes into existence must have a cause
Still proves the universe has a cause (logic still follows)
1. Everything other than God has a cause2. The universe is other than God3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
Traditional Objections
1. That which comes into existence must have a cause
Assumes causality applies to the extra-mental world (Hume/Kant)
Traditional Objections
1. That which comes into existence must have a cause
Assumes causality applies to the extra-mental world (Hume/Kant)
Traditional Objections
1. That which comes into existence must have a cause
2. The universe came into existence
Traditional Objections
What if the universe is eternal? (Historical Atheistic Position)
Scientific models: Steady-state theory, oscillating model, etc.
No warrant from modern science
2. The universe came into existence
Traditional Objections
Fallacy of Composition (Hume, Russell): thing's come into existence, but the universe is not a thing (that every man has a mother does not mean the human race has a mother)
Even taking the universe as a composite, all of the individual things must have come into existence at some point. Where did the "first thing" come from? What caused it? "The Universe" could not be the cause of one of its "parts."
2. The universe came into existence
Traditional Objections
Reverse Cosmological Argument: The universe is all that exists, therefore, if God exists, God is part of the universe and would need a cause.
Can't be true, because it would set up an infinite regress of causes
Misdefines "universe" - even scientists talk about "this universe" as opposed to "that universe" when suggesting a multi-verse theory.
2. The universe came into existence
Traditional Objections
Fallacy of Equivocation: "Everything" in (1) is not the same as "Everything" in (2). Sees argument as:
2. The universe came into existence
Traditional Objections
1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause2. Everything that exists (= the universe) has a cause3. Therefore, everything that exists has a cause
"Everything in (1) is general; "Everything" in (2) is collective
2. The universe came into existence
Traditional Objections
1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause2. Everything that exists (= the universe) has a cause3. Therefore, everything that exists has a cause
BUT: Even taking the universe as a composite, all of the individual things must have come into existence at some point. Where did the "first thing" come from? What caused it? "The Universe" could not be the cause of one of its "parts."
A Christian Objection"By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist" (Thomas Aquinas, ST Ia.46.2)
A Christian ObjectionNecessary Truths vs. Contingent Truths
Necessary Truths:
Contingent Truths:
Known as true after1. Terms are grasped, and2. Verified by observation
Something that must be true by definitionKnown to be true as soon as terms are grasped
Something that is true but could be false
A Christian ObjectionSome Questions: 1. That which comes into existence must have a cause
Is this premise a necessary or contingent truth?How is it known?
2. The universe came into existence
Is this premise a necessary or contingent truth?How is it known?
Necessary
Contingent
Reason alone
Reason plus scientific observations
A Christian ObjectionGod of the Gaps? A God-of-the-Gaps argument is one that says that God must exist because we can't explain some physical phenomena any other way.
Lightening = Zeus' thunder boltsSun's orbit = Apollo's chariotRain fall = Rain dances
Revisiting the Minor Premise
2. The universe came into existenceBig Bang / Expasion of the UniverseLack of Heat deathScientific fact
But what if science overturns these discoveries and argues that the universe is actually eternal? The Kalam, as stated, is at best an argument from ignorance (God of the gaps!)
Revisiting the Minor Premise
2. The universe came into existenceBig Bang / Expasion of the UniverseLack of Heat deathScientific fact
"Now, these arguments, though not devoid of probability, lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness. Hence it is sufficient to deal with them quite briefly, lest the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings, and not, as it is, on the most solid teaching of God." (Aquinas, SCG II.38.8)
Revisiting the Minor Premise
Two possible ways to understand Kalam's Minor Premise
2a. The universe probably came into existenceA. Evidence from the Big BangB. Evidence from the lack of heat death
2b. The universe necessarily came into existence
Restating the Minor Premise: Defending 2b
1. An eternal universe would be actually infinite
2. Any actual infinity entails absurdities
3. Therefore, any eternal universe would entail absurdities.
Self-evidently true
But why believe this is true?
Restating the Minor Premise: Defending 2a
Since 2b is probably false, 2a should be accepted. Thus the argument should be formulated as:
1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause2a. The universe probably came into existence.3a. Therefore, the universe probably has a cause. This is a valid, and NOT a God-of-the-Gaps.
Restating the Minor Premise: Defending 2a
Since 2b is probably false, 2a should be accepted. Thus the argument should be formulated as:
1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause2a. The universe probably came into existence.3a. Therefore, the universe probably has a cause.
Recognizes that science could overturn 2a, BUTDraws valid inference from evidence as we currently have it.What warrant does someone have for thinking that science will overturn 2a?
God-of-the-Gaps SidelightHER: I thought you said you were going to hang the plant.ME: Yes, and there it is on the hook.HER: But you said you were going to do it. You're not doing it the hook is, you liar.ME: But I put the hook there and hung the plant from it.HER: Thats not what you said you'd do. You said nothing about a hook, you said you would do it.ME: And I did, with a hook.HER: Which means that you lied when you said that you'd do it. Besides, how do I know that you put the hook in and did the hanging?ME: Its there isn't it? Did you do it?HER: I didn't, but maybe you made someone else do it. Maybe a burglar
broke in last night, and seeing the plant in the middle of the floor decided to hang it instead of robbing us. Maybe a sudden change in the earth's magnetic field twisted the hook into the ceiling and a hugh gust of wind carried the plant up onto it. How do I know that you did it?ME: (exasperated) The plant is hanging, I did it, you just have to decide if you believe me.
Doug Craigen, PhD (physics); former professor of physics at Acadia University (Revision 1.0 - Feb. 9, 1996) http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/old/godofgap.php
God-of-the-Gaps SidelightAs tempting as it may often be, it is a mistake to consider the failure of science to explain something as a proof of God's work. Such failures are nothing more or less than a demonstration of how far science has progressed, and a pointer to where some progress still needs to be made. Believing in a great creator means not doubting the quality of His creation. It is ironic that we often try to prove the existence of God by claims that essentially say He isn't such a great creator.
The Cosmological Argument
Grounding the Kalam
Chris [email protected]
