Comments on: A critical examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

By: Carneades

Carneades — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:35:28 +0000

On the one hand WLC denies the potential infinity by successive additin, because one never can arrive at infinity,but that is the nature of infinity! On the other hand, Covington, it is day to day, each arriving on time as Aquinas, who himself begs his five questions, and Kyle Williams note, unless as WLC in begging the question, with a starting point.
Yes, matter accrues through the quantum fluctuations in perhaps by quantum tunneling or by buds or brains.
Yes, the ignostic challenge discredits any anthropomorphic or metaphysical God, as they all depend on His incoherent attributes, contradictory to each other, not just the latter type of God a sPaul Edwards claim s in ” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,”What a wonderful man, and read it and his book on God.

By: Van Martin

Van Martin — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:10:23 +0000

DBSkeptic
I think you may be too hasty in agreeing with Craig that a mechanical cause of time and space will necessarily result in a past eternal universe. As long as the mechanical cause creates time, then time will have a beginning and therefore can NEVER be past eternal.
But looking at the problem from Craig’s side of the fence, I don’t believe postulating a timeless (and persoanl) cause gets Craig what he wants. For if Kalam CA suggests that only a personal cause could cause something to be created in time, and with a finite past, then we have the problem of at what time does this personal cause decide to create the universe. Of course, it cannot decide to create the universe at this or that time, since the universe must be created ALONG with time. Craig is really assuming an eternal past of time in oreder to justify his conclusion that a mechanical cause of time must be beginningless, which is blatantly contradictory, or at least so it appears to me.
Would love to hear other thoughts on this, rushed objection to the personal causal prinicipal, as I don’t hear it discussed much, but find it to be as problematic as any sub-argument of Craig’s masterfully crafted cosmological argument.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:37:28 +0000

Mortimer,
Can you explain further? First, where is the proof that it is “scientifically impossible for matter to always have existed”. Why? We know that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed. Given that, what evidence is there that its existence is contingent?
Second, since the big bang is linked with a massive singularity, it would seem that our universe started with plenty of energy/matter. Theory holds that time and space begin with the big bang. Why is it not possible that both time and space are contingent upon energy/matter? If time depends on it, then energy/matter could well be the one thing which necessarily exists. What rules this out?

By: TimB

TimB — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:42:05 +0000

In reference to Mortimer Duke’s Comments:
The entire argument is flawed. On what basis is the contention that matter arising from nothing a contradiction? Matter arises from nothing everyday. This is best exemplified by the creation of virtual particles; this has been measured experimentally, and is responsible for the Casimir effect. Netwonian dynamics (upon which Craigs proof seems to rely), is only an approximation at the macroscopic level. At the quantum mechanical scale it doesn’t apply; to wit, something CAN arise from nothing. Therefore the foundation upon which he makes is argument falls apart.
Drawing the conclusion that because we can not logically get our heads around an idea, God must exist, is an inherently flawed rationale. It’s just moving the debate one step back. A proof of God’s existence must arise from positvie evidence. If we look at what attributes this God must have, we then look for the unambiguous existence of the evidence that would be a result of those attributes, and which can not be explained by something more prosaic.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:06:35 +0000

Mortimer,

You say that matter is contingent. I assume this is because it is not obvious how matter could be necessary (correct me if I’m wrong). But I don’t find it obvious at all how an invisible person could be necessary.

Also, how is it a contradiction that something could come from nothing?

By: mortimer duke

mortimer duke — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:20:47 +0000

I find Craig’s argument to be the most modernly convincing proof of God’s existence in cosmological terms, and I find no dilemma in creatio ex nihilo since the idea that something cannot arise from nothing; that would involve a contradiction (comparing ex nihilo fit). Therefore something must always have existed. But it is scientifically impossible for matter to always have existed. Moreover, matter is contingent: it is not logically impossible for it not to exist, and nothing else depends on it. Hence it is logically valid to deduce a creator, non-contingent and not composed of matter: God.

By: NS

NS — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:05:23 +0000

I think the most frequently ignored yet simple a obvious problem with Craig’s argument is that premise number one is an equivocation.

Think about what we mean by “begin to exist”.

If a “bronze statue begins to exist” we are not claiming that the statue was created ex nihilo. The bronze existed before it was formed into the statue. We we normally think of things “coming into existance” we do not mean that the matter came into existance. We mean that some matter changed it’s form but in compliance with the law of conservation no new matter was created.

But when Craig says god created the universe “began to exist” he is literally saying that God created the univese ex nihilo (which in its self is a huge logical dilemma which he just Craig ignores). He is not using “begin to exist” in the sense above but rather in the sense that the matter literally began to exist.

As such the form of the first premise does not retain form but rather changes as the argument progresses. The argument is a sleight of hand, nothing more.

The other problem is of course that he claims that the Universe was created out of nothing. This is a objectification of nothing which is not logicaly sound but is quite amusing. It means that the Universe is composed of nothing and therefore does not exist.

By: smelly girl

smelly girl — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:17:16 +0000

Kalam in reverse?
1. God did not have a cause (according to theists)
2. God did not BEGIN to exist at some point (according to theists)
3. Therefore, God does not exist (my conclusion per Kalam argument in reverse)

By: matthew

matthew — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:48:43 +0000

Im wondering if the argument about the impossibility of an actual infinity does not apply. Lets assume an actual infinity of objects cannot exist. A universe containing a finite number of objects can still exist for an infinite period.

But can an actual infinite number of ‘events’ exist? Seeing as events occur after one another, we need only be concerned with the number of events that are happening at this instant – events in the past dont ‘exist’ any more than events in the future. And if the number of objects in the universe is finite then the number of events happening at this instant is also finite.

Im thinking Mr Craig is glossing over a few details in his formulation of the cosmological argument. I’d appreciate any comments -it is very late here and my brain might not be working properly.

By: TimB

TimB — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:58:43 +0000

Josh, Your belief that such a God is not worthy of worship does not necessitate a conclusion that denies his existence. This is a logically flawed argument which I have pointed out in multiple places on this forum.

As humans with a finite ability to process information, or with a finite AMOUNT of information, we are not capable of making an assessment of Gods perfection or imperfection, How can you presume to know the mind of such a god? Arguing against a deity on the basis that he offends our sensibilities (which are subjective) is a waste of time. We may well decide not to worship such a being, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

I vehemently disagree with Theists. I have been offered no incontrovertible evidence of either the necessity nor the existence of a deity; but I don’t want to engage in a moral critique of their particular god, becaus I don’t believe it adds anything to the debate. From my perspective, the argument resides at a fundamental question : Based on the evidence, does logical analysis dictate the necessity of god (deity, supreme being, creator, et.al), in order that existence be explained (note I did not say “given meaning”). ?

By: Josh Walker

Josh Walker — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:54:42 +0000

Even if the universe has a creator that used the evolutionary process, that doesn’t mean that creator is a god. God implies worship, but power does not necessitate worth of worship, in fact I cannot think of anything that makes one worthy of worship. One might argue that goodness or righteousness makes one worthy of worship, but a good and righteous being that deserved worship would not demand it. In fact they would have to denounce it, or they would stop being good and become a tyrant.

Therefore, even if the universe has a creator, it is not a “god”, and it is most definitely not the Christian god.

By: TimB

TimB — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:36:58 +0000

What if time is nothing more than an emergent property of our particular universe and not fundamental at all? In that circumstance, the idea of an infinite regression through eternity becomes meaningless. Although this idea might sound absurd, it is postulated in some currently researched theories of quantum gravity.

The fact that we, as humans, can ‘t conceive of how something (infinity, effect without cause, etc) can possibly be, is more a reflection of our own intellectual limitations, than a limitation on what is possible, given a large enough statistical sample. There are things we don’t know, and there are probably things that we will never know; That doesn’t mean we therefore attribute those things to “God”. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that just because I can’t explain it, God must be responsible. The reality is I’m probably just not smart enough.