Kalam Cosmological Argument - Why cause must be personal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ftfarias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

ftfarias

Guest
I was watching some discussions about KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) and I don’t get why the cause must be personal.

Most responses are:
  1. Must be an abstract object or a mind (no further explanation, sounds very ad hoc and unsuported)
  2. You need “will” to delay the effect (another strange response since the cause is timeless, so there is no delay)
  3. Can’t be something natural (again, no further explanation)
  4. From nothing, nothing comes (I agree, but not the point here, i’m asking why the cause must be PERSONAL)
Any explanation of this responses are welcome ! Thanks!
 
If we are personal, how can the cause be any less and not infinitely more?

An acorn comes from an oak tree. It contains within it the information of that oak tree in seed form. The existence of the acorn implies the Source of the acorn. Else the acorn could not grow into another oak tree.

The effect gives evidence of its cause, methinks. You cannot separate the nature of the effect from the nature of the cause, in other words.
 
Freddy said:
Are you saying the argument was invalid before there were people?
Click to expand...
No, but this is a somewhat different version of the argument. It is a substantial argument in that, it seems reasonable to me that, an individual spark (living thing) rightly implies a universal fire (God) and we see analogies that give intimation of this, as acorns coming from oaks…
 
Last edited:
Ok, actually, I don’t know much about the Kalam Argument specifically. I guess this is not that related, but it does offer support for why the First Cause would be personal in nature, as I believe it is…
 
Dimmesdale said:
The effect gives evidence of its cause, methinks. You cannot separate the nature of the effect from the nature of the cause, in other words.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answer! I’m not sure if I agree with you idea… Maybe the word “Nature” is too ambiguous for me. I can imagine many examples of cause and effects with complete different “natures” (like a man creating an object or a man creating a new concept). Of course you can say everything is in God, but that is a tautology and doesn’t help to explain. Also the KCA explains he universe, and God and the Universe have complete separated natures.

In the acorn we can easily explain with DNA, from God to men with can say it’s thought soul, but it’s explain men, not God.
 
ftfarias said:
Thanks for your answer! I’m not sure if I agree with you idea… Maybe the word “Nature” is too ambiguous for me. I can imagine many examples of cause and effects with complete different “natures” (like a man creating an object or a man creating a new concept). Of course you can say everything is in God, but that is a tautology and doesn’t help to explain. Also the KCA explains he universe, and God and the Universe have complete separated natures.

In the acorn we can easily explain with DNA, from God to men with can say it’s thought soul, but it’s explain men, not God.
Click to expand...
I suppose if you subscribe to creation ex nihilo, then the effect need not have anything to do with the cause besides the fact of existence itself… So stones and God have that one quality in common - existence… But there is also material causation where a table for instance is “caused” by the wood of a tree, and so is a transformation of the tree in one sense… If one sees the universe as a “transformation of God” or that “Nature” and “God” are synonymous like Spinoza, then it’s a different ball game but if there is a sharp creature/creator distinction then I suppose that erodes my analogy to a large extent…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top