Kalam argument

kalam argument

• infers a beginning cause rather than a sustaining cause 

• the causal sequence being temporal, w god as the beginning cause, is a central feature of the argument 

• scientific explanation applies with in the universe and therefore cannot apply to its actual creation 

• the cause of the universe must therefore have a personal explanation, i.e., intentionally created by an intelligent mind 

• must be ex nihilo and atemporal 

• as a timeless, external being, god didnt begin to exist so its then no contradiction in claiming god doesn’t have a cause 

• these are qualities that god would have, so the cause of the universe is god 

W.L. Craig’s proof

• P1 Everything that has a beginning has a cause 

• P2 The universe has a beginning 

• C1 The universe has a cause 

• C2 The cause of the universe is God 

STRENGTH of WLC: Infinite regress

• W.C Craig’s argument for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’ (meaning an infinite in reality) 

• problem is that sets w infinite members can be equal in size to their subsets. 

• craig uses the illustration of a library with an infinite number of books, half of which are red. 

• half of infinity is still infinity, so half of infinity is not smaller than infinity 

• this might make sense theoretically, but craig claims problems arise when applying it to reality 

COUNTER to infinite regress

• G cantor argues that an infinite series is actually possible 

• mathematical properties of infinite sets are simply radically different to those that are finite, making craig’s library or Hilbert’s hotel not absurd 

• craig takes it to be obviously absurd for a subject to be smaller to, yet also equal to its set 

• however, its only absurd for finite sets. for infinite sets, its not absurd, but their defining characteristic 

• infinite sets simply have different mathematical properties, one of which is the possibility of a one-to-one relation between the number of members of infinite sets and those of their subsets 

• → kalam argument misunderstands infinity and infinity has to exist in actuality even if we cannot imagine it 

WEAKNESS: lack of necessity

• could be argued that there is no need for there to have been an agent making a choice between having a universe and not having one- the universe could just have begun at random , by accident, w/o any conscious choice being made 

• even if the kalam argument is accepted, it doesn’t provide evidence for the existence of a god w/ all the characteristics that theists claim god has 

• might be argued that the Kalam argument is self contradictory since it denies the possibility of infinity existing in actualiy, but uses this as a part of an argument to demonstrate the actual existence of an infinite god 

STRENGTH: universe having a beginning

• The KCA's simple premise that the universe has a beginning is supported by the Big Bang Theory, which is in turn supported by the majority of scientists. This amounts to scientific support for the existence of God. 

• The "Big Bang" Theory was proposed in 1928 and the following year Edwin Hubble observed that the galaxies were expanding away from each other - which suggests the universe expanded from a central point, 14 billion years ago.  

• The discovery of cosmic background radiation (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang) in the 1960s strengthene

COUNTER to universe’s beginning

A posteriori arguments based on scientific evidence are on shaky ground. The big bang theory is just that -> a theory. Some scientists reject the Big Bang and offer other theories that say the universe might not have had a beginning. If one of these theories gets accepted instead, the KCA's support collapses.