In Defense of the Kalam
March 5, 2014 at 5:26 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2014 at 6:05 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(March 5, 2014 at 5:21 pm)Avodaiah Wrote: First of all, I have read more than just Craig's Reasonable Faith article on the Kalam, in fact' i'm not sure I read that one. I did take a look at these though:
Cosmological Absurdity
IC Wiki article
Cosmological Kalamity
I think one or two other ones too, but I can't find them now.
Anyway, on to the counterarguments:
I) The universe began to exist.
1) How do you know?
Because the things in the universe are constantly moving and changing. And if the universe is changing, it has to have a beginning state to change from. That means if the universe is changing, it must have had a beginning.
2) Time doesn't progress in such a simple way.
It doesn't matter if time progresses at different speeds or even backwards; everything in the universe still moves through time, and it can't have been moving through time infinitely: Again, if things are changing, they must have had a beginning state to change from.
3) This may be true for things in the universe, but not for the universe itself.
True, things in the universe can cause other things in it, but this is a form of change, and if this sequence of causes has gone on infinitely (i.e. the universe is infinite), then we are left with the same problem of infinite changes without a beginning state. That means the universe must not have gone on infinitely.
II) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
1) According to particle physics, this does not seem to be the case.
This is not just a law of physics; it is a law of pure mathematics and logic. Nothing cannot become something, just like 0 cannot equal 1; there needs to be a cause.
2) Ex nihilo or ex materia? You need to pick one.
Ex materia in both premises. The entire point of the argument is that there can be no creation ex nihilo. When we say God created the universe from nothing, we mean from nothing but Himself and His own power. We're not idiots... you know, usually... :S
3) NBE is just a synonym for God.
No, NBE is a hypothetical category, just like BE is. This argument is not trying to prove that there is only one NBE (i.e. God); there could be 2, 10, 100, or more NBEs in it. This argument only proves that the category is not empty and that every BE was caused by an NBE.
III) The universe has a cause.
1) Then who created God?
Remember that only things that begin to exist have to have a cause, and only things that change begin to exist. Also only things which move through time can change. Whatever the universe's cause is, it need not do any of these things.
2) This doesn't prove which god exists.
I never said it does. It is just an argument against atheism, not for any specific religion.
P.S. I'm a guy, Esquilax.
I'll respond to this further when I have time to look it over, however it's apparent from the first point you're ignoring the objection about causality, and restating arguments based on the causality as observed in the existing universe.
If the universe began to exist, why would currently observed causality, an artifact of the existing universe, (space and time) apply before space and time existed?
What makes an un-caused first cause distinguishable from the possible properties of the pre-universe as an entity, or single un-caused cause?
Where is there any indication that a first-cause event must have been intelligent, corporeal, or an entity?
Why is the OP Gish-Gallop copy-pasting instead of responding to the objections raised?
There are countless events in history of unexplained phenomena tagged "GodDidIt," only to later be explained. The KCA is a desperate last-ditch effort to legitimize "We Don't Know" :. <GodDidIt> as a rational "explanation" when it has failed to be anything other than a temporary placeholder for future scientific knowledge.
