In Defense of the Kalam

[Alex K]

Couldn't have said it better. The only thing the Kalamity argument has going for it is the moment of surprise when you hear it the first time and wonder whether there is something deep you've missed...

---

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

I've done my research on this, and as far as I can tell, it's a true argument.
Yes, people have tried to refute it a thousand times, but none of these attempts, as far as I have seen, have been successful. So anyone who thinks this argument is false, please tell me why.
Avodaiah

Then you haven't done enough research.

The argument contains at least 3 fallacies.

1. The fallacy of equivocation.

The argument equivocates on the meaning of 'begins to exist'.

In the first premise, 'begins to exist' is being used to mean, existence out of nothing.

This is existence ex nihilo'.

In the second premise, 'begins to exist' is being used to mean that things we observe in the universe that begin to exist are a rearrangement of existing matter and energy. Trees, tables, animals, iPhones begin to exist by rearranging existing matter and energy.

In other words, existence 'ex materia'.

The argument is using 2 different meanings for the same term.

2. Fallacy of composition.

Just because something is true of part of a system or part of a whole, does not mean it is true for the entire system.

The argument claims that, because cause and effect are true for all the things we observe withing the universe, they also must be true for the entire universe. This is false.

Example: Because large objects are made of atoms, large objects have the properties of atoms.

I'm sure you can see why the previous example is flawed, for the same reason the Cosmological argument is flawed.

3. Circularity.

(This failure could also be considered, 'affirming the consequent', because it smuggles the conclusion into the premises.)

Dan Barker states it well,

"The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.”

It also contains the fallacy of special pleading. But that one is too obvious to mention.


So, no, the argument is logically invalid. The modus ponens of your argument fails on multiple levels.

---

[max-greece]

Most of the arguments against have already been covered. I'll add one.

Whilst things that exist within the universe have a cause (actually a material cause for physical objects which eliminates the "God made the universe from nothing" argument anyway) this does not mean that outside the universe things work the same way. Note that I didn't say before the universe - that concept may not have any meaning.

The universe is referred to as "space-time." It is the combination of both. Time itself may not apply outside the universe or may work entirely differently.

Causality is based on time. In our world you cannot have the effect before the cause. This may or may not be true outside the universe. Everything outside the universe may happen simultaneously. Time may run backwards outside the universe for all we know.

Everything that has a begining has a cause - but time itself?

Simplistic application of common knowledge down here on earth does not seem to work when physics gets going. Those days ended with Newton. As soon as Einstein showed that time changes with speed all common knowledge flew out of the window. You may as well say "What goes up, must come down," and attempt to apply that adage to the universe.

[Esquilax]

There's a couple of greater problems with Kalam, that invalidate it before it even gets out of the gate.

To begin with, the end result of Kalam Klassic, as the OP has given it, doesn't get us to "Christian God," so her christianity is clearly the result of something other than Kalam; it's not what convinced her. Using Kalam, all you get to is "Cause For Universe," and that can be anything. There's no sense in using Kalam to prove god exists because... it doesn't.

In answer to that we'll usually get the Kalam Khristian Kedition, where the arguer will continue: "We know this cause needs to be a being, because it has to blah blah blah," all leading us up to a god without ever justifying why these traits need to be a part of the cause. In essence, Khristian Kalam goes thusly:

1. Everything needs a cause.
2. Therefore the universe needs a cause, because without that these rules would be invalidated.
3. Here's a thing that breaks these rules in order to create the universe so those rules can't be broken.
4. Therefore, 1 and 2 are preserved.

Anyone using Kalam is setting up premises to get to a conclusion that just demonstrates that they believe the opposite of the premises. It's just bizarre.

[FreeTony]

Even if it were valid, you end up with "something caused the universe". The cause = God bit is normally a bit of unsubstantiated waffle at the end.

If you used that logic in a court case and I said "everything has a cause, therefore my missing car has a cause" the Judge would say "so what". If you then said "well it must be Dave who lives down the road because someone once suggested he was a bit shady" you'd be laughed at.

In order to state that God caused the universe you have to obtain some evidence said God exists. These stupid arguments are trying to bypass this as no-one can find any evidence of God. As I was saying in a different thread, if you're trying to "prove" the existence of something you try and find evidence.

[Cyberman]

That's exactly my take on it as well. Saying the Universe had a cause is as far as you can go with those three statements, which is why WLC has to palm a whole deck of cards to get his god into the game. We already know the Universe exists and it is reasonable to suppose that at one time it didn't. Stapling a god on the end is just a pathetically obvious sign of desperation. You would be equally as qualified to make a logical chain like this:

1. Everything that is brown tastes of chocolate
2. Shit is brown
3. Therefore shit tastes of chocolate

And we know that the tastiest shit is the god of the bible/kerrang/whatever, because almost every theist from those camps love nothing more than to feed it to us. Therefore the god in those books must exist.

Edited to correct sloppy grammar.

[Kayenneh]

1. Everything that is brown tastes of chocolate
2. Shit is brown
3. Therefore shit tastes of chocolate

Since I can't post porn here, I'll just say, "Two Girls, One Cup". You're welcome.

[truthBtold]

1. Everything that is brown tastes of chocolate
2. Shit is brown
3. Therefore shit tastes of chocolate

Since I can't post porn here, I'll just say, "Two Girls, One Cup". You're welcome.

U wrong.. girl

[Mudhammam]

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

I read it in a book somewhere so as far as I can tell, it's a true argument.
Yes, people have tried to refute it a thousand times, but none of these attempts, according to the book I read, have been successful. So anyone who thinks this argument is false, please tell me why because I'm too lazy to actually do my own research.
Avodaiah

Fixed.

[Tonus]

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

Is there any problem with positing the Big Bang as the cause?

[Rampant.A.I.]

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

I've done my research on this, and as far as I can tell, it's a true argument.
Yes, people have tried to refute it a thousand times, but none of these attempts, as far as I have seen, have been successful. So anyone who thinks this argument is false, please tell me why.
Avodaiah

By "do your research," I assume you meant "Read this William Lane Craig Article":

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defens...l-argument

Had you actually researched the argument, you would find:

The KCA is an argument formulated by Islamic thinkers to argue the existence or Allah, not Yaweh.

Historically, the Unmoved Mover has had many objections, which cannot be avoided no matter how many times it is reformulated.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

1. What caused the First Cause? An un-causes first cause is special pleading.

2. It assumes causality existed pre-causality: That the current rules of the universe applied pre-universe.

The Universe began to exist.

1. It is not known whether the universe "began to exist".

2. Nothing has ever been witnessed "coming into existence" the same way the universe may have come into existence: See causality.

Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

1. This cause is undefined. If the two premises are correct, there is nothing to indicate what this first cause was.

2. There is nothing to indicate why it should be defined as not only as God, but a specific God with specific attributes.

3. Anything can be substituted here and hold the same logical weight as "GodDidIt".

4. The claim "God is the only possible cause" is special pleading. What caused God? Why is God immune from causality?

P.S.: People have "tried to refute it a thousand times" because some idiot keeps presenting it as a "new" argument. When objections are raised, they tweak the argument and re-introduce it.

The argument has never been shown to be valid.