Cosmological Argument - Kalam Flashcards
Intro
The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God based on evidence of the universe. It is an “a posteriori” inductive argument that posits to prove the existence of God through evidence and experience. The word “kalam” is an Arabic word which means to argue or discuss. In the 9th and 11th century Islamic scholars Al kindi and Al Ghazali put forward a cosmological argument that argued everything having a cause was a simple law of the universe. Therefore, it was logical to assume the universe itself must have a cause. Moreover, the case of the universe must be outside of the universe itself. Therefore, as the cause of the universe must be something outside of itself it must be non-physical in nature. This non-physical nature is ‘God’. This argument was then modernised by Christian apologist William Lane Craig.
Para 1 - premise 1
Craig bases his argument on three premises: everything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence, the universe began to exist and the universe has a cause.
- advocates of this argument contend that premise 1 is correct, because everything we observe comes to exist because it has been caused to exist by something prior.
- if one was to deny premise 1, you would think that the universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever.
- so no one sincerely believes that something e.g. a horse can pop up into being without a cause.
- furthermore, the science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are casual conditions for the origin of the universe. So anyone committed to modern science surely cannot deny that premise 1 is more plausibly true than false
Para 2- premise 2
- the most controversial premise in the argument is premise 2, that the universe began to exist
- this is that the universe began to exist
- if the universe never began to exist, then there has been an infinite number of past events prior.
- however Craig developed the defence that an I
Actual infinite cannot exist - if an actual infinite exists then various absurdities would result.
- if we are to avoid these absurdities then we must deny that an actually infinite number of things exist
- That implies that past events cannot actually be infinite
-this therefore leads to Craig second point that beginning less temporal series of events is an actual infinite that being said the universe cannot be beginningless. Rather the universe began to exist. - A common example that is used to understand this or explain this is the example of a library
- suppose the library contains an actually infinite number of books and suppose that library also contains an infinite number of red and infinite number of black books so that for every book there is a black book and vice versa
- It follows that the library contains as many red books as the total books in its collection and as many red books as red and black books combined
- But this is upset; in reality the subset (red or black) cannot be equivalent to the entire set (red and black)
- Hence, actual infinite cannot exist in reality
Conclusion
- the Kalam cosmological argument bases itself and the impossibility of the universe being infinite
- Once this is agreed that it is reasonable to ask how did it start?
- It can be agreed that Craig posits the requirement for a personal creator
- as Craig himself “ I think that it can be possibly argue that the cause of the universe must be a personal creator… cause simply mechanically operating set of necessary as efficient conditions existing from maternity then why would not affect also exist from eternity?”
The kalam cosmological argument isn’t convincing intro
There are many other arguments for the existence of God that many would believe is strong: Aquinas’ cosmological argument, inductive/posterior arguments etc.
- however the Kalam cosmological argument is an argument some such as atheists would find unconvincing and this is why. But firstly
Para 1 - is convincing
- the scientific points of view within the Kalam argument can be seen to support the cosmological argument, whilst strengthening it also
- it has led to some mathematicians and philosophers suggesting that actual infinites are illogical and therefore, impossible.
- the use of mathematic within the Kalam argument also makes it more convincing and trustworthy
- the Kalam cosmological argument as portrayed by William Lane Craig would seem to benefit from being written in the modern scientific age
- Craig has the advantage over Aquinas because he has access to contemporary scientific information about the universe: big bang theory, cosmological background radiation etc.
- for example, Craig states that ‘we did not just happen, we were caused’
- these all provide straightforward, scientific valid that the universe is infinite and thus had a beginning
- indeed the contemporary views of the universe agree that there was a starting point – this provides an extremely useful groundswell of opinion for any argument attempting to demonstrate that a beginning of the universe is required
- consequently, this proving how the Kalam cosmological argument is in fact, persuasive as it possesses many factors that are able to increase confidence in the theory whilst supporting the thesis of God
Para 2 - against
- Craig state infinite progress is impossible however, he later refers to God who is seen to be infinite
- This would mean that an infinite code is impossible, however, this is not what Craig believes
- This is an obvious contradiction within the theory which massively decreases how persuasive the cosmological argument can possibly be
- for example, many non theists then ask ‘where did God come from?’
- for those not predisposed to the position of theist, however, the argument does not have the same power to convince
- One of the key elements of the argument is that is often cited is that Craig states, quite categorically, that infinity is impossible
- The argument refers to a personal creator that is infinite
- as an argument, this is self-contradictory and is one of the key reasons for non theists to reject the kalam cosmological argument of God existence as unconvincing
- importantly, the Kalam argument doesn’t prove God exist but instead only states that it’s logically possible
Para 3 - for
The need for Craig to prove the universe is finite poses as meaningless
- Why are you for something which is supported by the vast majority of the rational and scientific world
- The fact that the universe has a point at which it began appears not to be dispute
- In fact, not only is it not industry it is readily accepted, almost as scientific fact rather than theory
- The concept that all things in our experience – including the universe itself, have beginnings, lens itself nicely to the first part of Craig’s argument
- Here, it would seem, is done – the Kalam cosmological argument for gods existence appears to be entirely convincing.
Para 4- against
- however, things are not quite as simple as they seen at first
- Craig argument moves from demonstrating that the universe had a beginning to the suggestion that this beginning had a cause, external to the universe – which Craig eventually asserts as being God
- it is at this point of the argument that the empirical support does far enjoyed, is no longer available
- A question of how convincing the argument is now rests on how far the individual is willing to accept the next steps in Craigs argument e.g. the belief in God
Para 5- for
- effectively, Craig suggests that the course of the universe must be through the deliberate choice of a personal being as the physical laws of the universe that causes everything within the universe to work did not themselves exist until the universe did
- This logically means that the cause of the universe could not be explained in terms of physical law
- The only other explanation is that the cause is personal
- for Craig the only viable personal agent capable of existing outside the universe and having the will, power and ability to create the universe is God
- for theists, there is much that is attractive about this argument
- It involves modern cosmology, appears and entirely rational and fits in with traditional theistic interpretations regarding creation
- in this sense it is a convincing argument
Cosmological arguments for gods existence are not persuasive in modern day society - introduction
- for theists, the cosmological argument is persuasive as it has stood the test of time and appeals to our evidence based nature
- however, some philosophers such as Hume question the validity of the cosmological argument in relation to causing effect
- This often lead to the conclusion that the cosmological argument isn’t entirely persuasive
Aquinas’ three ways are convincing
- Aquinas’ three ways focused on motion, cause an effect, and contingency
- The nature of these arguments are a post, reflecting the fact that it relies on empirical evidence to prove the theory – this persuade people to trust the cosmological argument as it has much reasoning behind it
- for example, Aquinas’ first way concerning motion, uses the example of the marble being moved from his actuality to potentiality by a sculptor
- Similarly, within his third way, focused on contingency
- He includes evidence presenting idea that children are dependent on their parents to bring them into existence
- this appears how persuasive theological argument appears to be because it’s a physical example that humans can easily understand and relate to
Aquinas’ three ways isn’t persuasive
- Hume challenges the cosmological argument in relation to cause
- he believes that the idea that every effect has a cause is an assumption instead of a fact we frequently use our imagination to come to this conclusion
- However this is insufficient to make the claim that one causes the other
- he also references the fallacy of composition, claiming that just because there are causes within the universe doesn’t mean the universe itself was caused
- for example, Russell enforces Humes criticism by stating that ‘ the universe is just there and that is all there is to say’
- as a whole, Hume argues that the universe may, in fact, the infinite which could suggest that it doesn’t need a cause
- The simplest explanation is most likely to be correct
- subsequently implying that the cosmological argument isn’t persuasive enough
Aquinas’ three ways isn’t persuasive
- Hume challenges the cosmological argument in relation to cause
- he believes that the idea that every effect has a cause is an assumption instead of a fact we frequently use our imagination to come to this conclusion
- However this is insufficient to make the claim that one causes the other
- he also references the fallacy of composition, claiming that just because there are causes within the universe doesn’t mean the universe itself was caused
- for example, Russell enforces Humes criticism by stating that ‘ the universe is just there and that is all there is to say’
- as a whole, Hume argues that the universe may, in fact, the infinite which could suggest that it doesn’t need a cause
- The simplest explanation is most likely to be correct
- subsequently implying that the cosmological argument isn’t persuasive enough
Kalam cosmological argument is persuasive
- the scientific points of view within the Kalam argument can be seen to support the cosmological argument, whilst strengthening it also
- it has led to some mathematicians and philosophers suggesting that actual infinites are illogical and therefore, impossible.
- the use of mathematic within the Kalam argument also makes it more convincing and trustworthy
- the Kalam cosmological argument as portrayed by William Lane Craig would seem to benefit from being written in the modern scientific age
- Craig has the advantage over Aquinas because he has access to contemporary scientific information about the universe: big bang theory, cosmological background radiation etc.
- for example, Craig states that ‘we did not just happen, we were caused’
- these all provide straightforward, scientific valid that the universe is infinite and thus had a beginning
- indeed the contemporary views of the universe agree that there was a starting point – this provides an extremely useful groundswell of opinion for any argument attempting to demonstrate that a beginning of the universe is required
- consequently, this proving how the Kalam cosmological argument is in fact, persuasive as it possesses many factors that are able to increase confidence in the theory whilst supporting the thesis of God
