The kalam argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey3456987
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey3456987 said:
How can user of kalam argument
do something like:
Click to expand...
The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following brief syllogism:[5]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;

Therefore :

3. The universe has a cause.

Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause:[6]

1. The universe has a cause;
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore :

3. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

en.wikipedia.org

Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Click to expand...
This premise very obviously assumes Craig’s conclusion. A more correct version would be:
  1. At the time of the origin of the universe a cause of the universe must have existed.
Click to expand...
All the other characteristics that Craig adds are not logically justified.
 
Last edited:
The wikipedia article you have linked to is great. However, reading it carefully, indicates that there are a few loopholes in the kalam argument, so it is not conclusive.
For one thing, the assumption that the universe began to exist is more or less the same thing as saying the universe has a cause. The argument that the universe began to exist depends on the non-existence of real infinities. For example, a real infinite regress into the past is said to be impossible because of hilbert’s hotel and other anomalies. That argument can be countered by the argument that the only actual reality we have now is the present. The realities in the past and in the future are not actually existing now. The comments in the talk section go into some of this.
Also there is a theory of a cyclical universe, which if true, would negate the Guth argument. Notice that Guth and Steinhardt shared the Dirac prize with Linde for development of the concept of inflation in cosmology, but that Steinhardt later abandoned the inflationary theory and AFAIK is now a supporter of cyclic and ekpyrotic cosmology.
And people have been referring to the BGV theorem, but I am not sure that the hypotheses of that theorem have been proven to be true.
 
Last edited:
God is the Fullness of Being Itself. That means all that exists exists, as a matter of priority in God, eternally. Human nature - along with everything else - exists eternally in God, in the mind of God, and exists only derivatively in temporal, causal reality. The principle of proportionate causality implies that effects can only be produced by causes where the effect is “contained” in the cause in such a way as the cause can bring about the effect. Otherwise, effects cannot be brought about where causes have no potential to bring them about.

God, being the Pure Act of Being Itself, the Actualizer of all Actualities must “contain” all effects in order to have the wherewithal to bring all existences into being.
 
Yes, you are right with your observation. The initial part of argument is about time. There is a jump when he concludes that the universe had a beginning.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Since God is infinite, you need to deal with infinities when dealing with God, and infinities can behave in ways that are different from ordinary finities.
Click to expand...
God is also causeless. Infiniteness is not an “extent” for God. It is something being out of time and matter. We cannot argue and estimate the timeless and spaceless.That is applicable for time and matter.
 
rossum said:
40.png
mhmtas63:
Jesus is not God. Jesus was a human and a prophet was sent by God.
Click to expand...
That is not the standard Catholic line. On standard trinitarian doctrine Jesus is God.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the matter and temporalness of Jesus is all in his human nature, not his divine nature. The divine nature was not transformed or mixed into a human nature.
 
My two cents:

If I walk ten feet, one could argue that I have traversed an infinite, because I can always divide the distance I have walked by 2. When I have walked 10 feet I have also walked half that distance: 5 feet. When I have walked 5 feet, I have also walked half that distance 2.5, 1.25, 0.625 ad infinitum.

The counter argument to this, is that I have not traversed an actual infinite, just a potential one. The distance I walk isn’t actually divided into an infinity of points, but it could potentially be divided into an infinity of points if I continue dividing the distance by 2 forever.

The same could be said about the past. It isn’t actually divided into an infinite number of events. But for any day in the past that is a finite distance from now, I can say “one day before that”, ad infinitum. The number of days is potentially infinite, but not actually infinite, because the unit of division is a man made construct and not something that exists “out there”, just like feet is in the first example.

EDIT: The point being that people who believe in an a universe without beginning are not necessarily claiming there is an event infinitely removed from the present, but rather that for every event that is separated from the current one by a finite number of events, there is potentially that event minus one, ad infinitum.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
Yes, but the matter and temporalness of Jesus is all in his human nature, not his divine nature. The divine nature was not transformed or mixed into a human nature.
Click to expand...
Then we have two Jesuses, one temporal and material, the other atemporal and immaterial. Since one thing cannot have all those properties, we must have at least two Jesuses.

Going back to the Kalaam argument, the atemporal Jesus does not have a beginning, so does not require a cause. The temporal Jesus did have a beginning and so did require a cause. Another difference between the two different Jesuses.
 
rossum said:
Then we have two Jesuses, one temporal and material, the other atemporal and immaterial. Since one thing cannot have all those properties, we must have at least two Jesuses.

Going back to the Kalaam argument, the atemporal Jesus does not have a beginning, so does not require a cause. The temporal Jesus did have a beginning and so did require a cause. Another difference between the two different Jesuses.
Click to expand...
Jesus being God is a contraversial issue. Jesus was a human and had a human soul. Jesus had a very powerful connection to God that Jesus was given a great authority and performed many miracles and was supported by Holy Spirit. Jesus was so wonderful which made people think Jesus must be God. Indeed every human have a connection to God but that connection get meaningful by faith and worships and good deeds. Jesus did what exactly Father revealed as Jesus himself declared that many times. Christians think Jesus was God and that is their faith. They support that idea by some interpretations yet there is no direct verse which imply that thought or claim.

There are many evidence for existence of God and Kalam argument is just one philosophical one.
 
Last edited:
This is not so, for there is only one Christ, the Divine Person. There is no human person in Christ, but He is a Divine Person with a human body and a human soul. This is not to deny that Christ is truly a Man; what makes a man truly a human being is having a human body and a human soul.
 
otjm said:
God does not “exist”. God is existence in his essence.
Click to expand...
If God does not exist, then how can He have an essence? Only existing things can have an essence; non-existent things do not have essences.
 
You need to study a bit of theology and philosophy. You clearly do not get what I was saying.
 
otjm said:
You need to study a bit of theology and philosophy. You clearly do not get what I was saying.
Click to expand...
I am Buddhist, and I have studied Buddhist ‘theology’. As you might suspect, it differs from Christian theology.

Since the Kalaam argument is not specific to Christianity – it applies in Islam and Judaism as well – then I feel no requirement to study specifically Christian theology. Both Judaism and Islam avoid the many logical problems with Jesus being both God and man.
 
Magnanimity said:
WL Craig does not begin the argument as the OP has here. Craig argues,
  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its coming to exist.
  2. The universe as we know it began to exist a finite time ago.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
Click to expand...
Right.
If things which begin to happen (all of a sudden) have an explanatory cause, and if the universe began to happen, then the universe has a cause.

If you want to defeat Kalam, it’s easy.
Just assert a counter-premis that either;
  • the universe has always existed (A past eternal, perpetual motion Groundhog Day of infinitely repetitive events #gonzo_metaphysics)
    or
  • that it spontaneously inexplicably popped into existence for no reason.
    (Goodbye science. Hello #magic)
 
Last edited:
That is why we call it a mystery.

Back to God: saying “God exists” is the equivalent of saying that god is finite. A thing which exists does not provide its own existence; sa;ying that God’s essence is existence is the equivalent of saying that God is the Uncaused Cause, the source of existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top