The Kalam Argument Needs Rephrasing

[Oreoracle]

Here is the popular “kalam” argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
   C. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

That doesn’t sound too disagreeable at first glance, but once we look at the definition of “universe” the argument begins to look silly: “the whole body of things that are observed or postulated”; in other words, “the sum total of all that exists.” I am aware that this isn’t the word’s only meaning, but if the terms in an argument are vague, they ought to be changed.

Now let’s call this “cause” of the universe “God,” since that is the purpose of the kalam argument. Here is my own counter to this version of the argument:

1. All causes exist.
2. All things that exist are part of the universe.
   C1. Therefore, all causes are part of the universe.
3. Assumption 1: God is a cause.
   C2. Therefore, God is part of the universe.
4. Assumption 2: God is a cause of the universe.
   C3. Therefore, God is part of the universe and its cause.
5. No part of a thing can cause itself.
   C4. Therefore, “Assumption 2” is false.

The error of the kalam argument lies in the fact that if God was all that existed at one time, he himself would have been the universe, and so saying that God caused the universe would be the equivalent of saying that the universe caused the universe, which is false. The kalam argument appears reasonable only if we imagine that a thing can exist outside of the universe, which is impossible given the definition of “universe.” A rephrasing is in order, methinks.

 

[tonyrey]

That doesn’t sound too disagreeable at first glance, but once we look at the definition of “universe” the argument begins to look silly: “the whole body of things that are observed or postulated”; in other words, “the sum total of all that exists.” I am aware that this isn’t the word’s only meaning, but if the terms in an argument are vague, they ought to be changed…
The error of the kalam argument lies in the fact that if God was all that existed at one time, he himself would have been the universe, and so saying that God caused the universe would be the equivalent of saying that the universe caused the universe, which is false. The kalam argument appears reasonable only if we imagine that a thing can exist outside of the universe, which is impossible given the definition of “universe.” A rephrasing is in order, methinks.

A false equation:
“the whole body of things that are observed or postulated” = “the sum total of all that exists.” This is only true if one subscribes to physicalism…

 

[Oreoracle]

A false equation:
“the whole body of things that are observed or postulated” = “the sum total of all that exists.” This is only true if one subscribes to physicalism…

Either way, the latter is a definition of “universe.” Besides, it doesn’t matter, because God has been postulated.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The more significant error is that the universe never “began”.

The “First Cause” doesn’t refer to the “First Event”, but the most fundamental logic, the “First BEcause”.

In addition, your proposed (2) is in error. The universe as a whole is not “a part of the universe” and you assume a definition of the universe. And you assume Determinism applies to God.

 

[tonyrey]

“the whole body of things that are observed or postulated” = “the sum total of all that exists.” This is only true if one subscribes to physicalism…

It makes all the difference because God is not a “thing”, i.e. a finite object. It does not make sense to include the Creator in the class of “all that exists” because that which exists necessarily does not exist in the same way as that which is contingent…

 

[Oreoracle]

The more significant error is that the universe never “began”.

And I’m sure you have a staggering amount of evidence to support that proposition.

The “First Cause” doesn’t refer to the “First Event”, but the most fundamental logic, the “First BEcause”.

My argument merely assumes that the first cause exists, so this distinction is moot.

In addition, your proposed (2) is in error.

Not according to the definition I’ve provided.

The universe as a whole is not “a part of the universe”

The argument works whether God is part of the universe or all of the universe. It doesn’t matter which.

…and you assume a definition of the universe.

Well yes, it would be rather difficult to use a word without a definition. The whole point of this thread is to make people more wary of the ambiguity of the word “universe” in the kalam argument as well as other metaphysical arguments. The argument could be reformed for clarification. I would attempt to do so myself, but I’ll leave theists to refine their own arguments. I know how grouchy they can be when it comes to their brand of metaphysics!

And you assume Determinism applies to God.

What on Earth does determinism have to do with anything?

It makes all the difference because God is not a “thing”, i.e. a finite object. It does not make sense to include the Creator in the class of “all that exists” because that which exists necessarily does not exist in the same way as that which is contingent…

I plan on starting another thread soon about my qualms with “contingency.” Perhaps we can discuss matters there.

 

[tonyrey]

It makes all the difference because God is not a “thing”, i.e. a finite object. It does not make sense to include the Creator in the class of “all that exists” because that which exists necessarily does not exist in the same way as that which is contingent…

Quite apart from the question of contingency it is obviously absurd to regard God as just another item in the list of things that exist. It is obvious what the conclusion is going to be - even though you think you have proved it to your satisfaction…

 

[Siddhartha]

Here is the popular “kalam” argument:

1. Everything

or, better, “Each thing”]

that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.

Is the universe “one thing”?

 

[James_S_Saint]

And I’m sure you have a staggering amount of evidence to support that proposition.

Only logic, reinforced by observation.

Not according to the definition I’ve provided.

You mean the definition, “existence = all observed or postulated”???

So a postulated unicorn is a part of the universe and exists? Interesting.

The argument works whether God is part of the universe or all of the universe. It doesn’t matter which.

Except that it makes your statement incorrect. “All that exists is a part of…”. The universe as a whole is not “a part of the universe”.

You would be better off using the word “Reality”.

What on Earth does determinism have to do with anything?

Determinism is the presumption of the sovereignty of cause and effect. The anti-God preachers don’t subscribe to such.

 

[QuiGeritSpatha]

The error of the kalam argument lies in the fact that if God was all that existed at one time, he himself would have been the universe, and so saying that God caused the universe would be the equivalent of saying that the universe caused the universe, which is false.

The problem with this logic is that you assign to God a characteristic of the rest of the universe, e.g. that it began to exist, which is inherently untrue of God, Who exists eternally, so even if He could indeed at one time have been considered “the universe,” at that point the Argument would simply cease to hold validity.

However, it seems that the Argument itself has provided a different definition of the universe than you’re using; in saying that the universe began to exist, it excludes God from the universe. The implication is that the cause of all things which began to exist must itself not have begun to exist.

 

[Oreoracle]

You mean the definition, “existence = all observed or postulated”???

No, I mean “the sum total of all that exists.”

So a postulated unicorn is a part of the universe and exists? Interesting.

It exists only conceptually, I would say.

Except that it makes your statement incorrect. “All that exists is a part of…”. The universe as a whole is not “a part of the universe”.

My apologies. That error actually did escape me. Let me revise the argument:

1. All causes exist.
2. **Each **thing that exists is part of the universe.
   C1. Therefore, all causes are part of the universe.
3. Assumption 1: God is a cause.
   C2. Therefore, God is part of the universe.
4. Assumption 2: God is a cause of the universe.
   C3. Therefore, God is part of the universe and its cause.
5. No part of a thing can cause itself.
   C4. Therefore, “Assumption 2” is false.

There we go. Problem solved.

You would be better off using the word “Reality”.

Maybe, but my usage of “universe” is a synonym of “reality” so I feel that the change is unnecessary and will make people think my argument is somehow not related to the kalam argument.

Determinism is the presumption of the sovereignty of cause and effect. The anti-God preachers don’t subscribe to such.

I don’t feel that my argument has assumed determinism in any way. Determinism is simply the belief that each set of circumstances is in some way determined by previous circumstances. Truly, there is ample evidence backing this doctrine, but I haven’t invoked it in my argument. The only way to escape determinism is to contend that events happen randomly; that is, without cause.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I haven’t been arguing with WHAT you are trying to say, but merely the semantics that tends to cause misunderstandings. You said that Kalam needs rephrasing, so obviously semantics is the issue.

In your (1) you also need to clarify what you mean by “exists”.

Existence comes in realms of existence. Principles, for example, do not have physical existence. They exist in the “Divine realm”.

A realm of existence is a set of mutual affecters. The physical realm of existence is the set of all that effects what we call the physical, which happens to be all that changes. The Divine realm of existence is that of the “supernatural” or the principles that are authoritatively above, that govern, the physical existence. They are not a part of the physical existence.

God (the Father) is of the Divine realm of existence, not the Physical realm.

God is the Principle that causes the physical realm to be.

This is ALL about the definitions used by theologians and the associated concepts.

The real error in the Kalam argument is that the physical universe began. It did not (logically provable).

 

[punkforchrist]

The scholastics who defended the KCA (John Philoponus, al-Ghazali, et al) would have understood “universe” as the sum total of all finite things, and not literally everything. Today, we make this definition more precise by saying that the universe is the totality of all physical space, time, matter and energy. While one definition may entail literally everything that exists, that’s not how the KCA proponent is using the term; and how the proponent of an argument uses a term is what’s most important.

 

[Oreoracle]

The problem with this logic is that you assign to God a characteristic of the rest of the universe, e.g. that it began to exist, which is inherently untrue of God, Who exists eternally, so even if He could indeed at one time have been considered “the universe,” at that point the Argument would simply cease to hold validity.

I did not assume for the sake of the argument that God began to exist, only that he exists. So long as he exists, he is part of the universe according to the definition I’m using. Existence is the only requirement for being part of the universe. It doesn’t matter whether the entity has a beginning or not.

However, it seems that the Argument itself has provided a different definition of the universe than you’re using; in saying that the universe began to exist, it excludes God from the universe. The implication is that the cause of all things which began to exist must itself not have begun to exist.

Again, beginnings have nothing to do with it. My argument is semantical, as James and punkforchrist have recognized: The point is that if God exists, he is part of the universe. If he is part of the universe, it hardly makes sense to say that he caused the universe, because this would entail him causing himself. It could be that God expanded upon the universe, but saying he caused all of it creates problems.

The scholastics who defended the KCA (John Philoponus, al-Ghazali, et al) would have understood “universe” as the sum total of all finite things, and not literally everything. Today, we make this definition more precise by saying that the universe is the totality of all physical space, time, matter and energy. While one definition may entail literally everything that exists, that’s not how the KCA proponent is using the term; and how the proponent of an argument uses a term is what’s most important.

Yes, thank you for pointing this out. It’s just that I’ve seen this argument used in recent books and I felt the need to request that the wording be changed for the sake of clarity. As you’ve said, the definition of “universe” hasn’t been constant throughout history.

 

[Oreoracle]

In your (1) you also need to clarify what you mean by “exists”.

Existence comes in realms of existence. Principles, for example, do not have physical existence. They exist in the “Divine realm”.

I don’t think I need to clarify this for the argument to do its work. God exists so that he is capable of causing events. That’s all that needs to be known.

A realm of existence is a set of mutual affecters. The physical realm of existence is the set of all that effects what we call the physical, which happens to be all that changes. The Divine realm of existence is that of the “supernatural” or the principles that are authoritatively above, that govern, the physical existence. They are not a part of the physical existence.

What do you mean by “authoritatively above?”

 

[Oreoracle]

Is the universe “one thing”?

As logicians would say, the universe is a class: the “class of all that exists.” This means that each member that comprises it exists, and that is what they have in common and require for membership in the class. If you’re asking whether the universe consists of only one entity, then the answer is “no.” It is simply treated as a single thing insofar as it is a class.

 

[reggieM]

As logicians would say, the universe is a class: the “class of all that exists.” This means that each member that comprises it exists, and that is what they have in common and require for membership in the class. If you’re asking whether the universe consists of only one entity, then the answer is “no.” It is simply treated as a single thing insofar as it is a class.

The property of existence exists. But that property cannot be contained within the universe because it must preceed the universe. In order for the universe to exist, the property of existence must already be present and be applied to the universe.

 

[Oreoracle]

The property of existence exists. But that property cannot be contained within the universe because it must preceed the universe. In order for the universe to exist, the property of existence must already be present and be applied to the universe.

Hahahaha…I’m sorry, but you’ve just reminded me why I despise metaphysics. By “the property of existence” I assume you mean “the ability to exist” or “that which enables existence.” But if this property itself must come into existence, how can it? It’s own ability is required before it can ever take effect–if existence is an ability that must be accounted for, and the ability itself exists, then the ability of existence must be granted the ability of existence by something else, and the chain goes on indefinitely. This is no different than the Platonists talking about “essence” being necessary for existence–I can simply claim that essence requires a prerequisite before it can exist, just as they’ve done with existence.

Ultimately, it makes no sense to talk about requirements for existence, because it will just lead to problems like these. Metaphysics is just a waste of time, friend.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Hahahaha…I’m sorry, but you’ve just reminded me why I despise metaphysics. By “the property of existence” I assume you mean “the ability to exist” or “that which enables existence.” But if this property itself must come into existence, how can it? It’s own ability is required before it can ever take effect–if existence is an ability that must be accounted for, and the ability itself exists, then the ability of existence must be granted the ability of existence by something else, and the chain goes on indefinitely. This is no different than the Platonists talking about “essence” being necessary for existence–I can simply claim that essence requires a prerequisite before it can exist, just as they’ve done with existence.

Ultimately, it makes no sense to talk about requirements for existence, because it will just lead to problems like these. Metaphysics is just a waste of time, friend.

In metaphysics a “property” is what you might call a feature or characteristic, usually a defining characteristic. In the case of existence the defining characteristic is its ability to have affect.

How affect “comes to be” is that it is logically impossible for it to not be - ever - in any “possible world”.

 

[Oreoracle]

In metaphysics a “property” is what you might call a feature or characteristic, usually a defining characteristic. In the case of existence the defining characteristic is its ability to have affect.

How affect “comes to be” is that it is logically impossible for it to not be - ever - in any “possible world”.

Personally, I have a problem with defining “to exist” as “having the ability to affect,” but we may have to discuss that in a different thread.

Also, I don’t know why everyone insists that things must exist. You’ve already seen that I doubt the accuracy of modal claims in my new thread.