Menu fechado

kalam cosmological argument: fallacy

It originates with Aristotle's idea of the Prime Mover. To be fair, the proponents of this argument do indeed offer additional arguments in an attempt to assert that the cause of the universe must be without a cause. It’s beginningless.” Another reason is that if you do not allow for an uncreated Creator, if you insist that God must have a Creator, you get thrown into an infinite regression. Example – “The universe began to exist” (Premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.) 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. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fallacy of Composition April 26, 2017 Jonathan MS Pearce Patheos Explore the world's faith through … The answer: because this is the kind of claim that can be reasoned out. Paul Draper, “A Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument” 1. The application of the conclusion demands that the First Cause precede, logically, all else. It does so, Kant thinks, because the proponent of the argument, having promised to [1] Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” p. 158. But for this discussion, only efficient and material causes need to be distinguished. One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go. In fact, we ought to accept our intuitions in the absence of these undercutters or defeaters, unless there is some reason to suspect our cognitive function is impaired. In the example of the chair, the final cause would be the purpose of sitting. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Las contradicciones filosóficas de la cosmovisión transgénero, El realismo modal, libre albedrío y el infinito actual en Dark. The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. To look at the evidence, see my blog posts “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” and “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”. The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Therefore, God is Chinese”. It wouldn’t prove that the universe itself was without a cause. 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)” which you can watch here. 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). Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation, Objection 4: Nothing Has Ever Been Demonstrated To Come Into Being From Nothing, Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (, By using this site, you agree to our updated, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, I Still Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Articles on Intelligent Design / Evolution, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)”, The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity, “Does The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?”, “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/deconstructing-new-atheist-objections-to-the-arguments-for-god/, A Simple Reason Why The Qur’an Cannot Be The Word of God, 10 Reasons to Accept the Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Fact. In that case, the origin of our universe would indeed not be “everything that ever was, is, or will be”. 2. Key Concepts: Terms in this set (40) Fallacy of composition. The Borde-Guth-Velinken Theorem, as well as the impossibility of traversing actual infinites, bring us to an absolute beginning of literally everything at some point, whether that be the beginning of our universe, The Mother Universe, The Grandmother Universe, or whatever. And (B) we give arguments for that. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” I am a Theist but want to learn more about Atheism, especially about its response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most popular cosmological arguments around today. But why think a thing like that? The multiverse, for instance, really doesn’t solve the problem, but merely places it back one step. Moreover, The Bible credits Him with being the Creator of all physical reality (John 1:1-3). “Ad hoc!” one might cry. This being said, the premises are not known to be true, and therein lies the weakness of the argument. The Kalam Cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God. This leads to my next point; we do mean literally everything in both steps 2 and 3. Temporal. ‘The universe has a cause.’ The claim seems uncontroversial enough. “Whatever begins to exist had a cause.” God did not begin to exist. 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. Of course, we Christians happen to believe this being is identical to the Christian God ontologically. There was an error submitting your subscription. Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). 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. Second, it commits an ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy of arguing for some-thing other than what was at issue (A 609/B 637). I was like “Boy, I hope I can handle these responses.” I never expected the pitiful, flimsy objections RR put forth. I believe each objection can be satisfactorily answered so that one is justified in accepting the KCA. It is true that the conclusion of the particular syllogism under discussion is “The universe has a cause,” but that syllogism is just a subpart of an overall argument whose conclusion is that the universe must have been caused by a beginningless God. The universe began to exist. The… Richard Dawkins made this same complaint about the argument. Check your email. This means that each Christian, and each person, is rationally justified in accepting the KCA. A contingent being exists. Answer: This objection attempts to state that although the universe had a beginning, some non-theistic explanation is just as possible (or even probable) as God. Second, the foremost proponent of the KCA, William Lane Craig, points out that the First Cause need not be in existence before time, as there is a first moment–the incoherence runs both ways. It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. This being that is demonstrated to exist by this argument is consistent with The Christian God. The universe is contingent c. Thus, universe has a cause of its existence But the point remains that such a being as described by this argument must exist”[2]. But since I do, I am free to accept the ramifications, unless one of the conditions for jettisoning an intuition apply. What is the fallacy of equivocation? The ancient philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are different types of causes. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence. Flashcards. It is an objection to the application of the conclusion. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. But otherwise, rational intuition is at the very core of reasoning. I admit that The Kalam doesn’t get you to the uniquely Christian conception of God, but it does get you to a conception of God that doesn’t match the majority of the ones most religions out there. The cosmological argument states that everything must have a cause, but I think it is implied that "everything" is everything of the natural world. 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. 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. A cosmological argument, in natural theology and natural philosophy (not cosmology), is an argument in which the existence of God is inferred from alleged facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. 2. mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the fallacy of equivocation cannot stand. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 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. STUDY. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Answer: It’s true that one needs some level of empiricism in order to judge many things. Nature did not begin to exist until The Big Bang. © Copyright 2014 CrossExamined.org. However, he doesn’t dispute the arguments. Was There Really A Census During the Time of Caesar Augustus? The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. This is not based on what we don’t know. I facepalmed even harder at this objection than I did the previous one. Hume, cosmological arguments, and the fallacy of composition Both critics and defenders of arguments for the existence of God as an Uncaused Cause often assume that such arguments are essentially concerned to explain the universe considered as a whole. The Universe began to exist. In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". I’ve given one of them above. Gravity. If that is true, then it seems that the KCA’s truth implies God–not just any God, but the God of the Bible! However, in every defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument I’ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument stops. Of course. 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. 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. Learn. 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. The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been popularised by William Lane Craig. The Kalam cosmological argument (KCA) is an deductive argument, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is the formulation of the argument which I understand you to be using: 1. Las contradicciones filosóficas de la cosmovisión transgénero, El realismo modal, libre albedrío y el infinito actual en Dark. Visit the Christian Apologetics Alliance Now >>, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist (Book). It seems bizarre to say that because some claim is in the purview of science, one should not claim it as true. 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. Hence, even if accepted, the argument doesn’t even remotely support theism.”. Another underwhelming objection. Hence, the First Cause was the first. RR’s objection is pretty damn trivial. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is simply a desperate attempt by theologians to place the "God" word in what we don't know. God didn’t use previously existing material to manufacture the universe. Design By Microhound. This is the teleology, the purpose or end goal of bringing something into being. Hmm, sounds far more like the God of Christian theology and the Bible than any of the other alternatives, doesn’t it? Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance, a … God Of The Gaps: Definition – God Of The Gaps is a fallacy in which God is inserted as an explanation for something that cannot, at the time, be conclusively explained by something else. Abrahamic religions and Deism are consistent with this argument, but polytheistic, animistic, and pantheistic religions are not. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of itsexistence. The word “kalam” is an Arabic word that denotes medieval Islamic theology.Muslim theologians, when Islam swept over Egypt in North Africa, absorbed the Christian thought that had been in those areas, like in Alexandria, which was … Hence, if the First Cause was not really the first cause after all, then the first moment of time would already have existed. Answer: It’s difficult to know what is meant by “well-established,” but it seems to mean something like “gained wide acceptance among philosophers.” But that’s a fairly poor way of evaluating an argument: a poll! He is the author of “Inference to The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? The Kalam Cosmological Argument as oft stated by theists, most notably William Lane Craig, is as follows. It’s then the philosophy that takes over given this. The first moment is itself identical with the first act of bringing the universe into existence. William Lane Craig’s recent form of the Kalam Cosmological argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Draper raises several objections to Craig and Moreland’s Kalam argument: 1. 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?). One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a … RR says that Kalam proponents commit the special pleading fallacy. How so? For this response to work, one must adhere to Platonism, "the view that there exist such things as abstract objects—where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental." An efficient cause of the chair would be the carpenter who fashioned the chair from the wood. 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 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. For example, a chair’s material cause is the wood gathered from chopped down trees. 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.”. So we needn’t call the personal Creator of the universe “God” if Dawkins finds this unhelpful or misleading. The argument is fairly straightforward and enjoys intuitive support. Match. I just don’t see how this is an objection against arguments, for it must use reasoning (of some metaphysically-ultimate sort, even if it’s a brute fact) in order to tell us reason doesn’t tell us the whole story. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. First, simply because some claim remains open to change does not mean that claim cannot be accepted as true. Every contingent being (including things infinitely old) has a cause of its existence b. © Copyright 2014 CrossExamined.org. A “material cause” is the stuff out of which something is made. ruby_alaska. Now, granted, the syllogism doesn’t define this cause as “God”. 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). 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. 2. Original Blog Source:  http://bit.ly/2VrWpAg. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. When my patron Kevin Walker, asked me to make a response to this video, I was actually bracing myself for some pretty hard-hitting rebuttals, if not refutations. It is said that by rational intuition, we mean the way we know “if X, then Y; X; Therefore, Y” is true. Design By Microhound. I wrote “Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. 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? However, this is extremely ad hoc, and there is literally no reason to believe that if there is a multiverse, it is as complete as Lewis claimed (in fact, there’s decent reason to believe such a state of affairs is impossible if identity across worlds holds). The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Answer: This is a bit of an odd claim. The Special Pleading Fallacy occurs whenever you make an exception to an established rule without justification. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. Rationality Rules said “A second problem that even we accepted the argument. Answer: Presumably, this is the “Who created God?” problem (I can’t for the life of me think of any other problem). The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. The kalam argument is an altered form of the cosmological argument.It is intended to circumvent the infinite regress problem contained within the traditional cosmological argument by altering the premises.The arguments dates back to the Islamic apologist Al-Ghāzāli (1058-1111). 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. 3. 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." ... "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" | William Lane Craig at Georgia Tech - Duration: 1:18:13. Each objection has been dealt with by providing an answer. This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Rationality Rules complains that the argument doesn’t demonstrate the omniscience, omnipresence, or the moral character of the universe’s cause, but the argument was never designed to get those qualities. And hence, the proponents of this argument almost always employ additional arguments to reach their conclusions including the likes of Craig”. Moreover, this is an impossible epistemology. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. 2) Premise: The Universe began to exist. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA. Write. The universe began to … Timeless – Since time did not exist until The Big Bang, the cause cannot be inside of time. Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. It only asserts “Therefore, the universe has a cause”. The Kalam Cosmological Fallacy: A Brief History of the Failures of Intuition SisyphusRedeemed. The original Kalam cosmological argument was developed by Islamic scholars in medieval times based on the Aristotelian “prime mover” idea. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is or will be in both steps 2 and 3. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. Since then it has garnered much attention from theists and atheists alike. The universe began to exist. This is a Straw-man Argument. William Lane Craig introduced the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) in 1979. [2] William Lane Craig, “Deconstructing New Atheist Objections To The Arguments For God,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/deconstructing-new-atheist-objections-to-the-arguments-for-god/. Second, the KCA does not rely entirely on science. The universe began to exist. Rationality Rules (RR) says “Even if the Cosmological Argument were accepted in its entirely, all it would prove is that there was a cause of the universe, and that’s it. 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. And atheism certainly is not consistent with the argument’s conclusion. For the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument is formulated as follows: Let’s look at each of Rationality Rules’ rebuttals. Dawkins doesn’t dispute that the argument successfully proves the existence of an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful personal Creator of the universe. Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. All Rights Reserved. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Additionally, as I point out in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity a study of comparative religions demonstrates that only 4 religions are consistent with the Cosmological argument’s conclusion: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (that’s why Ghazali defended it), and Deism. Another type of cause Aristotle identified was Final Causality. The question RR should be asking is not whether additional arguments are needed, but whether the additional arguments given are good. Cosmological Argument. But the point that I’m trying to make here and now is that The Kalam Cosmological Argument, by itself, is pretty damn trivial. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. However, one absolutely needs reason to judge all things. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But if there was no infinite regression of creators begetting creators, then that logically brings us to an uncreated Creator, a Creator without beginning. In case anyone does not know the argument, it goes like this: 1) Everything that begins to exist has Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.”. Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. One may think these arguments fail, but to claim the KCA rests almost wholly on the science demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the basic defenses of the KCA’s premises. As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. It doesn’t even suggest, let alone prove that this cause was a being, and it certainly doesn’t suggest that that cause was a being that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personal and moral. Stretch and Challenge - The Kalam Cosmological Argument . Trying to explain the origin of a framework based on things that are contained within it is a composition fallacy. 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. Arg from contingency (one version of Cosmo arg) a. Answer: That science is not a metaphysical enterprise is, I think, absolutely correct. Two other arguments for the personhood of the universe’s cause can be given, and I’ve unpacked these in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity available on Amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle. Craig & Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument," p. 188. Test. Answer: Again, it must be noted that this is not an objection to either premise and hence not the conclusion. If the objector wants to insist this is impossible because the First Cause existed before time, he must remember that positing a moment before time began is incoherent, so his objection cannot get off the ground. David Hume was perhaps more right than he could have known when he wrote of the human mind’s proneness to associate cause with effect regardless of whether it has a rational basis for doing so (which it ultimately does not); increasing evidence suggests that the principle of causality may well be something not … What is the fallacy of equivocation? I could also point out his appeal to the "singularity" that was there before the Big Bang is also a bare assertion fallacy. Therefore, if you’re picking a view about God based on the cosmological argument alone, your list of options consistent with the evidence is limited to just 4 options, Christianity being among them. It is named after the kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated. 1. These sub-arguments may be schem? The overused “God Of The Gaps” objection. In the first premise, it means literally everything that exists, whereas, in premise 2, it only refers to everything that American consumers purchase. There are two sub-arguments which proponents of the kalam cosmological argument have given in defence of 2. The KCA is structured as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Check your email. However, that's not what the premise is arguing. Answer: This is a classic non-sequitur, on par with “some people have incorrect thoughts, therefore thoughts cannot be a reliable guide for truth.” The point is this: why should I doubt my intuition because someone else got theirs wrong? 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. 3. It’s based on what we do know. However, two points remain. Your free resource is on the way! The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. However, it must be noted that the KCA is an argument for natural theology, not revealed theology (cf. 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. What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… I’ve given arguments for that above. 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. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. This objection is just as underwhelming as the previous two. It is not the domain of natural theology to discuss, explicitly, the Christian God. Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF. So what we have is a timeless, unchanging (because it is timeless) First Cause whose first act is bringing the world into existence. Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. The whole must have the same properties as the parts that make it up. William Lane Craig. Was There Really A Census During the Time of Caesar Augustus? Please try again. The Big Bang demonstrates just that. All Rights Reserved. The matter i… First of all, there’s no exception to even be made! To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. 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. Spell. PLAY. Objection 2: It Doesn’t Prove The Universe’s Cause Was The First Cause. Spaceless – Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be a spatial being. Immaterial – The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. However, it does not therefore follow that science cannot be employed in a metaphysical claim. 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. This is patently false. He doesn’t even say what the arguments are. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”. Therefore, it may be argued that not only is jettisoning intuition wholesale unjustified, but actually irrational (by definition). Your free resource is on the way! 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. God is defined as a supernatural entity. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It's formulated as follows: Everything that begins to exist has a … No creator could ever come into being because there would always have to be a creator before him to bring him into being. 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. Craig formulates thekalām cosmological argument this way (in Craig and Smith1993: chap. The word being equivocated on here is the word “everything”. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. They are two main objections that i have for the kalam cosmological argument. We mean the same thing by “universe” in both steps 2 and 3. But it did not exist. “But wait!” I can hear one protest. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. A second type of cosmological argument, contending for a first orbeginning cause of the universe, has a venerable history, especiallyin the Islamic mutakalliman tradition. There is a very good reason for stating this. In fact, no creator in the entire infinite past series of creators could ever come into being because each would have to be preceded by a previously created creator. Please try again. Dawkins said it like this “Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.”[1] and Dr. William Lane Craig responded to it thusly: “Apart from the opening slur, this is an amazingly concessionary statement! 4. Has RR even paid the slightest bit attention to apologists’ defenses of The Cosmological Argument? I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. Equivocation: Here is the Kalam Cosmological argument again: 1. Created by. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. 1): 1. 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. argument in the sense, apparently, of tacitly incorporating the onto-logical argument as a proper part (A 607/B 635; A 608–9/B 636–7). My face is hurting from all the facepalming I’ve been doing throughout watching this dude’s videos. The multiverse, aliens, whatever. It goes like this: “Whatever begins to exist had a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe had a cause.” The argument has several common objections, and eleven of them are listed here, along with some of my comments. Before I give my response, let me inform my readers that I distinguish causes via Aristotelian Causation. 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. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. 1). We’re simply to take someone’s word for it, when we actually have physicists and scientists admitting these theories don’t work. The conceptual analysis part of the argument is being totally ignored by RR. But as I argue in my blog posts “Does The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?” and “Is The Universe A Computer Simulation?” not to mention chapter 1 of The Case For The One True God, this Mother Multiverse scenario cannot be extended into past eternity. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning. On what grounds is thisassumption made? The fallacy to it is that if everything must have a cause then God must as well. There are good reasons given as to why the cause of the universe must be uncaused. What is that? Answer: It’s very true that science is changing, and any claim should be held tentatively (even gravity–seems dubious though, right?). 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. 2. It was popularized in the western world by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979). It asserts that something can indeed come from nothing – a concept in philosophy known as Creatio Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing), when this has never been demonstrated to occur. Only the Abrahamic religions (and Deism) teach that a God like the one described above brought all physical reality into existence from nothing. And since no creator could ever come into being, the specific creator that brought our universe into existence couldn’t have come into being. Now, RR can dispute whether premise 2 is true, but if I, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, etc. If the argument … In fact, to the contrary, everything we know about cause and effect overwhelmingly and unanimously tells us that when a new thing is created it is due to the rearrangement of energy and matter that already existed… that is, everything is the result of Creatio Ex Materia (creation out of material).”. Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. He seems to think that merely having to bolster the conclusion “the universe had a cause” with additional arguments is an invalid move. Relates to Worldly rather than spiritual matters. Thus, RR says that steps 2 and 3 of the argument employ the same words with different meanings. Rationality Rules says that in the second premise, what we mean by the term “Universe” is the scientific definition of universe (i.e all matter, energy, space, and time), whereas in the conclusion, we employ the colloquial usage of the term “Universe”, meaning literally everything that ever was, is, and ever will be. Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation. In fact, the second premise (“the universe began to exist”) can be defended solely on rational argumentation. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, given that the universe began to exist, if follows that the universe has a cause of its existence. The argument isn’t intended to prove those things. I kind of disagree with that. Example – “Science doesn’t know how life came from non life. Charles Taliaferro, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ch. This suggests that there wasn’t an infinite regression of creators begetting creators. 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. There was an error submitting your subscription. Everything is made in China. atized as follows : 2.10 If the universe did not begin to exist, then an infinite temporal regress of events exists. But obviously, here we are. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF. Sure, philosophers are more likely than your average person to be able to evaluate the argument properly, but let’s not pretend this is the only way to discover truth. 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. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. Success! Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim.

Should I Study Mechanical Engineering Or Electrical Engineering, I Am The First And The Last Kjv, Hebrew Graffiti Font, Dvd Player With Usb Port That Plays All Formats, Curly Hair Products That Don't Cause Acne, Modern Restaurant Dwg, Ceiling Plastering Ratio, Forged A Guide To Becoming A Blacksmith Pdf,