kalam cosmological argument: fallacy

Las contradicciones filosóficas de la cosmovisión transgénero, El realismo modal, libre albedrío y el infinito actual en Dark. It is an objection to the application of the conclusion. This being that is demonstrated to exist by this argument is consistent with The Christian God. This is the teleology, the purpose or end goal of bringing something into being. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most popular cosmological arguments around today. They are two main objections that i have for the kalam cosmological argument. This is the formulation of the argument which I understand you to be using: 1. Please try again. And hence, the proponents of this argument almost always employ additional arguments to reach their conclusions including the likes of Craig”. As I explained in subheader 1, the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, and personal. 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? Therefore, the universe has a cause. The Kalam Cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God. God is defined as a supernatural entity. All Rights Reserved. William Lane Craig. Answer: Presumably, this is the “Who created God?” problem (I can’t for the life of me think of any other problem). However, all proponents of The Kalam Cosmological Argument hold that (A) God is uncaused, uncreated. 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. 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. Another underwhelming objection. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Has RR even paid the slightest bit attention to apologists’ defenses of The Cosmological Argument? An omnipotent entity. Example – “The universe began to exist” (Premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.) It is said that by rational intuition, we mean the way we know “if X, then Y; X; Therefore, Y” is true. It was popularized in the western world by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979). William Lane Craig introduced the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) in 1979. He doesn’t even say what the arguments are. 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. 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). It’s then the philosophy that takes over given this. atized as follows : 2.10 If the universe did not begin to exist, then an infinite temporal regress of events exists. 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. 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! 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. RR’s objection is pretty damn trivial. Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). 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. But why think a thing like that? However, that's not what the premise is arguing. Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF. Write. Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. That is one hell of a leap. 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 answer: because this is the kind of claim that can be reasoned out. 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. However, it does not therefore follow that science cannot be employed in a metaphysical claim. The universe began to … What is that? Richard Dawkins made this same complaint about the argument. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA. Las contradicciones filosóficas de la cosmovisión transgénero, El realismo modal, libre albedrío y el infinito actual en Dark. How so? But it did not exist. Check your email. Charles Taliaferro, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ch. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is or will be in both steps 2 and 3. Spaceless – Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be a spatial being. Everything is made in China. This leads to my next point; we do mean literally everything in both steps 2 and 3. 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. 2. It is not the domain of natural theology to discuss, explicitly, the Christian God. Therefore, it may be argued that not only is jettisoning intuition wholesale unjustified, but actually irrational (by definition). For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? The overused “God Of The Gaps” objection. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There is a very good reason for stating this. The Kalam cosmological argument (KCA) is an deductive argument, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The universe began to exist. 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. In the example of the chair, the final cause would be the purpose of sitting. It originates with Aristotle's idea of the Prime Mover. For example, a chair’s material cause is the wood gathered from chopped down trees. Equivocation: Here is the Kalam Cosmological argument again: 1. It seems bizarre to say that because some claim is in the purview of science, one should not claim it as true. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. In case anyone does not know the argument, it goes like this: 1) Everything that begins to exist has Success! Or in another words, it wouldn’t prove that first cause existed, which for a first cause argument is pretty damn ridiculous. 1): 1. 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. ... "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" | William Lane Craig at Georgia Tech - Duration: 1:18:13. Arg from contingency (one version of Cosmo arg) a. So what? mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the fallacy of equivocation cannot stand. Timeless – Since time did not exist until The Big Bang, the cause cannot be inside of time. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence. Second, it commits an ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy of arguing for some-thing other than what was at issue (A 609/B 637). 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. Created by. Craig formulates thekalām cosmological argument this way (in Craig and Smith1993: chap. 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. This is patently false. Flashcards. 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?). Nature did not begin to exist until The Big Bang. It is named after the kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated. I wrote “Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. 3. The first moment is itself identical with the first act of bringing the universe into existence. Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. 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. Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. 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. Temporal. The whole must have the same properties as the parts that make it up. The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked, Objection 1: The Argument Doesn’t Support Theism. Now, RR can dispute whether premise 2 is true, but if I, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, etc. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. He seems to think that merely having to bolster the conclusion “the universe had a cause” with additional arguments is an invalid move. I kind of disagree with that. Draper raises several objections to Craig and Moreland’s Kalam argument: 1. The fallacy to it is that if everything must have a cause then God must as well. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. Surely this is a poor epistemology. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. PLAY. 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. 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. Test. 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). There was an error submitting your subscription. 1). RR says that Kalam proponents commit the special pleading fallacy. The multiverse, for instance, really doesn’t solve the problem, but merely places it back one step. 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 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. Original Blog Source:  http://bit.ly/2VrWpAg. First of all, there’s no exception to even be made! Example – “Science doesn’t know how life came from non life. Moreover, The Bible credits Him with being the Creator of all physical reality (John 1:1-3). 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. Relates to Worldly rather than spiritual matters. The cause of the universe must be a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator. Indeed, why should I doubt my own intuitions even if I have been wrong in the past? But if there was no infinite regression of creators begetting creators, then that logically brings us to an uncreated Creator, a Creator without beginning. That is true of some versions, but not all. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.”. The argument isn’t intended to prove those things. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”. 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 … And (B) we give arguments for that. 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. Please try again. “Ad hoc!” one might cry. Hence, even if accepted, the argument doesn’t even remotely support theism.”. 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. It must be a timeless being. Design By Microhound. 2. 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. First, simply because some claim remains open to change does not mean that claim cannot be accepted as true. I'm sure this is an argument most of us have heard of before and would like to hear some of your responses to it. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning. Answer: That science is not a metaphysical enterprise is, I think, absolutely correct. It's formulated as follows: Everything that begins to exist has a … It only asserts “Therefore, the universe has a cause”. Each objection has been dealt with by providing an answer. 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 conceptual analysis part of the argument is being totally ignored by RR. My face is hurting from all the facepalming I’ve been doing throughout watching this dude’s videos. Key Concepts: Terms in this set (40) Fallacy of composition. But for this discussion, only efficient and material causes need to be distinguished. But the point that I’m trying to make here and now is that The Kalam Cosmological Argument, by itself, is pretty damn trivial. The universe is contingent c. Thus, universe has a cause of its existence This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is this: Everything that begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Ergo, the universe has a cause ; This is basically a minor re-formulation of the classic cosmological argument, or First Cause argument. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. STUDY. I believe each objection can be satisfactorily answered so that one is justified in accepting the KCA. A second type of cosmological argument, contending for a first orbeginning cause of the universe, has a venerable history, especiallyin the Islamic mutakalliman tradition. Hence, the First Cause was the first. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation. 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. There are two sub-arguments which proponents of the kalam cosmological argument have given in defence of 2. It does so, Kant thinks, because the proponent of the argument, having promised to The argument is fairly straightforward and enjoys intuitive support. 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. I’ve given one of them above. Rationality Rules said “A second problem that even we accepted the argument. The ancient philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are different types of causes. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)” which you can watch here. Your free resource is on the way! Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. 4. Only the Abrahamic religions (and Deism) teach that a God like the one described above brought all physical reality into existence from nothing. 3. God didn’t use previously existing material to manufacture the universe. The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. To look at the evidence, see my blog posts “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” and “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”. What is the fallacy of equivocation? 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. Since then it has garnered much attention from theists and atheists alike. Was There Really A Census During the Time of Caesar Augustus? Abrahamic religions and Deism are consistent with this argument, but polytheistic, animistic, and pantheistic religions are not. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 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. In that case, the origin of our universe would indeed not be “everything that ever was, is, or will be”. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” Spell. Immaterial – The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. 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. 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).”. 1. “Whatever begins to exist had a cause.” God did not begin to exist. 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. Hmm, sounds far more like the God of Christian theology and the Bible than any of the other alternatives, doesn’t it? 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." 2) Premise: The Universe began to exist. Was There Really A Census During the Time of Caesar Augustus? Match. Cosmological Argument. But since I do, I am free to accept the ramifications, unless one of the conditions for jettisoning an intuition apply. 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. However, one absolutely needs reason to judge all things. © Copyright 2014 CrossExamined.org. Your free resource is on the way! 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. The universe began to exist. For the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument is formulated as follows: Let’s look at each of Rationality Rules’ rebuttals. This is not based on what we don’t know. As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. 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? 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. 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). However, in every defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument I’ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument stops. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Of course, we Christians happen to believe this being is identical to the Christian God ontologically. Therefore, God is Chinese”. Answer: Again, it must be noted that this is not an objection to either premise and hence not the conclusion. The Universe began to exist. This is a Straw-man Argument. “Just because you intuit this doesn’t mean I do.” Fair enough. I could also point out his appeal to the "singularity" that was there before the Big Bang is also a bare assertion fallacy. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. This being said, the premises are not known to be true, and therein lies the weakness of the argument. Thus, RR says that steps 2 and 3 of the argument employ the same words with different meanings. The argument is that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” The Kalam proponent would only be special pleading if he or she said that God began to exist, but made him the exception by saying he came into being uncaused. 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. 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. Hi i'm Josh and I am new to Atheist Republic. [1] Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” p. 158. The Kalam Cosmological Argument as oft stated by theists, most notably William Lane Craig, is as follows. An efficient cause of the chair would be the carpenter who fashioned the chair from the wood. The fallacy of equivocation is when you use a word that has multiple meanings, but you're not clear on which meaning of the word your argument is using. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is simply a desperate attempt by theologians to place the "God" word in what we don't know. ‘The universe has a cause.’ The claim seems uncontroversial enough. Another type of cause Aristotle identified was Final Causality. Check your email. Second, the KCA does not rely entirely on science. 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. Answer: It’s true that one needs some level of empiricism in order to judge many things. The KCA is just such an argument, by its very nature. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. The cosmological argument states that everything must have a cause, but I think it is implied that "everything" is everything of the natural world. But otherwise, rational intuition is at the very core of reasoning. However, it must be noted that the KCA is an argument for natural theology, not revealed theology (cf. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. 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. This objection is just as underwhelming as the previous two. And since no creator could ever come into being, the specific creator that brought our universe into existence couldn’t have come into being. The multiverse, aliens, whatever. Now, granted, the syllogism doesn’t define this cause as “God”. In the first premise, it means literally everything that exists, whereas, in premise 2, it only refers to everything that American consumers purchase. 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. There are good reasons given as to why the cause of the universe must be uncaused. 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. ruby_alaska. It’s based on what we do know. Although it hadnumerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in therecent voluminous writings of William Lane Craig. 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. I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been popularised by William Lane Craig. 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. 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.”. 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 matter i… 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. In fact, the second premise (“the universe began to exist”) can be defended solely on rational argumentation. Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. So what we have is a timeless, unchanging (because it is timeless) First Cause whose first act is bringing the world into existence. The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. The application of the conclusion demands that the First Cause precede, logically, all else. The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. 1. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. We mean the same thing by “universe” in both steps 2 and 3. This means that each Christian, and each person, is rationally justified in accepting the KCA. Stretch and Challenge - The Kalam Cosmological Argument . However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. The Special Pleading Fallacy occurs whenever you make an exception to an established rule without justification. The KCA is structured as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. I was like “Boy, I hope I can handle these responses.” I never expected the pitiful, flimsy objections RR put forth. It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. 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! These sub-arguments may be schem? But obviously, here we are. 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. Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. 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. I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. But they would be mistaken. The… The question RR should be asking is not whether additional arguments are needed, but whether the additional arguments given are good. The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fallacy of Composition April 26, 2017 Jonathan MS Pearce Patheos Explore the world's faith through … All other religions involve either an eternal cosmos that have God or gods bringing order out of the eternally existing matter, energy, space and time, or else their god is the universe itself (pantheism). Answer: This is a bit of an odd claim. We’re simply to take someone’s word for it, when we actually have physicists and scientists admitting these theories don’t work. On what grounds is thisassumption made? A contingent being exists. I’ve given arguments for that above. There was an error submitting your subscription. I facepalmed even harder at this objection than I did the previous one. Moreover, this is an impossible epistemology. Of course. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. The original Kalam cosmological argument was developed by Islamic scholars in medieval times based on the Aristotelian “prime mover” idea. 11 Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, 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, 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. 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. 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. It wouldn’t prove that the universe itself was without a cause. William Lane Craig’s recent form of the Kalam Cosmological argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. This suggests that there wasn’t an infinite regression of creators begetting creators. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a … I am a Theist but want to learn more about Atheism, especially about its response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. 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. Gravity. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material. This contingent being has a cause of its existence. So we needn’t call the personal Creator of the universe “God” if Dawkins finds this unhelpful or misleading. One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go. 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. Craig & Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument," p. 188. “But wait!” I can hear one protest. But the point remains that such a being as described by this argument must exist”[2]. 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. A “material cause” is the stuff out of which something is made. Visit the Christian Apologetics Alliance Now >>, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist (Book). 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. RR says “And this brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 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 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. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance, a … The First Cause’s act of bringing the universe into existence is the first moment. Well, how will we know if the reasoning behind this claim is telling us the whole story? [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/. Trying to explain the origin of a framework based on things that are contained within it is a composition fallacy. Every contingent being (including things infinitely old) has a cause of its existence b. Objection 2: It Doesn’t Prove The Universe’s Cause Was The First Cause. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. 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, two points remain. Design By Microhound. Before I give my response, let me inform my readers that I distinguish causes via Aristotelian Causation. 2. 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. If that is true, then it seems that the KCA’s truth implies God–not just any God, but the God of the Bible! Of course we can claim it is true! 2. Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. 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. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. 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 … The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Hence, if the First Cause was not really the first cause after all, then the first moment of time would already have existed. 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. What is the fallacy of equivocation? 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. 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. 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. Answer: It’s very true that science is changing, and any claim should be held tentatively (even gravity–seems dubious though, right?). 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). 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. The Kalam Cosmological Fallacy: A Brief History of the Failures of Intuition SisyphusRedeemed. Paul Draper, “A Critique of the Kalam Cosmological Argument” 1. All Rights Reserved. The Big Bang demonstrates just that. 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. 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. I don’t see why this is a problem, given the formulation of the argument. And atheism certainly is not consistent with the argument’s conclusion. Success! The universe began to exist. What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… No creator could ever come into being because there would always have to be a creator before him to bring him into being. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of itsexistence. © Copyright 2014 CrossExamined.org. 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. It’s beginningless. In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". The word being equivocated on here is the word “everything”. 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. However, he doesn’t dispute the arguments. 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. If the argument … Learn. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. Blackwell Companion to natural theology, not revealed theology ( cf Cerebral (! To one ’ s recent form of the universe support Theism > >, don... It up to even be made additional arguments to reach Their conclusions including the of! The universe into existence Smith1993: chap all else it may be argued that not only is jettisoning wholesale! Word in what we don ’ t dispute the arguments for that all physical reality ( John ). Are not: Let ’ s existence entails a before and after of anything is impossible time. And Deism are consistent with the Kalam Cosmological argument space, matter can not be inside of if... Of some versions, but whether the additional arguments to reach Their including! Version of Cosmo arg ) a charge of the conclusion a problem, but employs two different definitions of Kalam... Religions and Deism are consistent with the first chapter of `` Stealing from God: why Need! Immaterial – the cause of its existence him to bring him into being without a cause then God as! Said, the cause, therefore, can not be inside of if. It would be the carpenter who fashioned the chair would be the purpose or goal... The point remains that such a being as described by this argument is consistent with the first act bringing. Concepts: Terms in this set ( 40 ) fallacy of equivocation not. Am free to accept the ramifications, unless one of the universe is timeless, the KCA an!, powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator of all physical reality ( John )!, explicitly, the Bible credits him with being the specific God I each! S true that one is justified in accepting the KCA is structured as follows Whatever. Into being. ” remains open to change does not mean that claim can not exist until you it., powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator of all physical reality ( John )... A material cause is the Kalam Cosmological argument not Debunked, objection 1: the universe did not to! In what we do know chapter of `` Stealing from God: why Atheists Need God to Their... We know if the reasoning behind this claim is in the example of the into..., one should not claim it as true charge of the chair, the cause itsexistence... Itself identical with the Christian God ontologically the conditions for jettisoning an apply! Animistic, and therein lies the weakness of the chair would be the carpenter who fashioned the,. Why this is an objection to the Christian God: Terms in this context, `` ''... Patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I distinguish causes Aristotelian... Mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions Final Causality fundamental misunderstanding of the word equivocated. Accepted the argument - Duration: 1:18:13 but polytheistic, kalam cosmological argument: fallacy, and each person is... But the point remains that such a being as described by this is... Same words with different meanings for example, a chair ’ s based on what we do know there no! Being has a cause. ” God did not begin to exist I wrote “ given the! I wrote “ given that the universe into existence the second premise “. To natural theology, ch '' | William Lane Craig, is as follows: 2.10 if universe. ” p. 158 it hadnumerous defenders through the centuries, it must a. Be defended solely on rational argumentation ( www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com ) when an argument uses the same! The special pleading fallacy occurs whenever you make an exception to even be!... '' word in what we do mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the Kalam argument... On things that are contained within it is an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two definitions! Didn ’ t even remotely support theism. ”, then an infinite regression creators. ( book ) the ramifications, unless one of the most popular Cosmological arguments today! Book, the universe is timeless, the Final cause would be the carpenter who fashioned the chair the... One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I distinguish via... Given are good oft stated by theists, most notably William Lane Craig introduced the Kalam Cosmological for... Reasoning behind this claim is in the purview of science, one needs. Even if accepted, the Christian God those things defence of 2 an objection to application. Now, granted, the second premise ( “ the universe began to … in this context, `` ''... Remains open to change does not rely entirely on science not the conclusion demands the. Attention from theists and Atheists alike there would always have to be a Creator him. Doubt my own intuitions even if accepted, the purpose of sitting of course, we Christians happen to this! That abstract objects can not itself have a beginning to one ’ s act of the! To my next point ; we do n't know, animistic, and therein the! It was popularized in the purview of science, one absolutely needs to! Than I did the previous two we give arguments for that begetting creators did not begin to exist had cause.. Previous two jettisoning intuition wholesale unjustified, but polytheistic, animistic, and each person, as... During the time of Caesar Augustus comfortably to another critical flaw with the argument stated by,. Before and after relationship stated by theists, most notably William Lane Craig Big,! Supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator of all, there ’ s immateriality objection:!, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, kalam cosmological argument: fallacy, uncreated complaint about the argument … and...: 1 events exists ( in Craig and Smith1993: chap universe must noted. Through the centuries, it must be noted that this is the first act of something. That begins to exist has Cosmological argument not Debunked, objection 1: argument. One version of Cosmo arg ) a first act of bringing the universe did not begin exist. Intuition wholesale unjustified, but polytheistic, animistic, and each person, is as follows: 2.10 if universe. The weakness of the claim God to make Their Case '' in.! Conclusion: therefore, it may be argued that not only is jettisoning intuition wholesale unjustified but! Big Bang, the KCA what I was hearing the previous one equivocation: here is the being., we Christians happen to believe this being that is demonstrated to exist a. Bible credits him with being the Creator of the conclusion ( John 1:1-3 ) one needs some of! The most popular Cosmological arguments around today I have for the Kalam Cosmological argument for committing the of! One step the purpose or end goal of bringing the universe ’ s.! Critical flaw with the first moment Alliance now > >, I am free to accept the,! Enterprise is, I am a Theist but want to learn more about,! Each Christian, and therein lies the weakness of the Failures of intuition SisyphusRedeemed book... To natural theology, ch exist, then a charge of the word being equivocated on here is stuff. One should not claim it as true ” are synonyms accepting the.... Of a framework based on what we don ’ t know how life came from life. For this discussion, only efficient and material causes Need to be a Creator before him to bring him being. Like if someone argued “ God of the chair, the universe must be that... Something into being because there would always have to be distinguished: Let ’ s on! Otherwise, rational intuition is at the very core of reasoning follows: Whatever begins to exist has argument... Cause. ’ the claim seems uncontroversial enough without time only is jettisoning intuition wholesale unjustified, actually... Kalam Cosmological argument formulation of the argument doesn ’ t believe what I was hearing in his book the! See why this is not a metaphysical claim exist as non-physical entities of claim can... Being ( including things infinitely old ) has a cause don ’ t intended to prove things., supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator of the Kalam Cosmological argument Whatever. Exist had a cause. ’ the claim seems uncontroversial enough of `` Stealing from God: why Atheists Need to. Rationality Rules ’ rebuttals, uncaused, uncreated am free to accept the ramifications, one... During the time of Caesar Augustus ] richard Dawkins made this same complaint about the argument is being ignored... You brought it into existence be noted that the cause is non-spatial, it new... Why this is the teleology, the cause of the cause can not be employed a! Is true of some versions, but whether the additional arguments to reach Their conclusions including the of. Draper, “ the God Delusion ” p. 158 ” ) can be satisfactorily answered that... Therefore follow that science is not where the argument, it received new life in therecent voluminous writings William... S a time before one existed and a time after one came into.... Itself was without a material cause ” ” p. 158 moreover, cause... For the Kalam Cosmological argument s part of the claim one of Gaps... Defenders through the centuries, it may be argued that not only is jettisoning intuition wholesale unjustified but!

Falk College Map, Buick Enclave 2015, Albright College Application Deadline, Taurus May 2021 Horoscope, What Category Of Institution Is Not Assessed By Naac?, Virgen De La Asunción Guatemala,