Stump the Christian?

[Longhorn]

Okay. I've read all the threads, and while I'm no expert, nothing jumped out at me as being the definitive fatal blow to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Since I obviously missed it, would you be so kind as to give me the exact post or the exact argument itself which you feel does strike such a blow?

Thanks.

Sure.

---

The problems with Kalam CA go deeper than just whether the premises are true or not.

Kalam CA is guilty of several fallacies that invalidate it.

The first is the fallacy of equivocation. It equivocates on the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.

In P1, the phrase 'begins to exist' refer to objects within the universe that are a rearrangement of existing energy and matter. Trees, people, tables, etc begin to exist under this definition. This is creation ex materia.

In P2, the phrase 'begins to exist' refers to creation out of nothing. In other words, the deity created all matter and energy out of nothing. This is creation ex nihilo.

If Kalam is rewritten using the different definitions, the fallacy becomes obvious. (to borrow from IronChariots,org)

1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

In other words:

1. Every X has a cause.
2. The universe Y.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.

Kalam also contains the fallacy of composition.

P1 refers to 'everything' that we have ever observed, which is the set of every 'thing' withing the universe. P2 refers to the universe itself, which is not part of the set of every 'thing' as defined in P1. A set can't be a member of itself.

Just because the parts have certain properties, does not mean the whole has the same properties.

In other words, Kalam CA is saying something as idiotic as, "Atoms are not visible to the naked eye. Humans are made up of atoms. Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye

I would just like to add that there is a logical problem with assuming that the laws of the universe apply to the universe itself. Our universe can be described as the 'set of all things within our space/time continuum, including space and time'. A wall made of indestructible bricks isn't necessarily an indestructible wall. A universe that is a closed system where entropy holds may not itself be entirely subject to entropy. For instance, a bang/crunch cycle could apply that 'resets' the entropy to a lower level. I don't particularly think that is the case, but it isn't disproven by an appeal to thermodynamics.

Right. Our current understanding of entropy, space, and all of physics for that matter, is entirely restricted to the universe post t=0, as that is the time period in which we live. We can't make any assertions about what happened prior to t=0, as we have no reason to think our understanding of time and space and causality have any relevance there. We can't look at the universe 'from the outside' or 'before it started' because that doesn't make any sense, and we have no way of measuring 'outside the universe' or 'before it started'.

You hit upon the major fallacy that destroys the modus ponens of Kalam's (or any variant) Cosmological argument.

There is a big fat fallacy of equivocation in it. It equivocates the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.

The first definition in P1 refers to creation ex-material, or in other words, rearrangement of existing matter/energy.

The second definition in P2 refers to creation ex-nihilo, or creation out of nothing.

There is also an equally bad fallacy of composition, in that it claims that since a part of the whole requires a cause, it also applies to the whole.

I still can't believe that so many theists think that the CA is such a strong argument.

---

Kalam is poorly and dishonestly worded, fallacious and based on terrible logic. If after reading all of the above and my and Esquilax's responses in this thread you still think it's a legitimate argument, you must be wilfully blind.