The Kalam cosmological argument from temporal causation Flashcards
Q: What is the Kalam cosmological argument based on?
A: Temporal causation, where a cause brings about its effect after it, and the continued existence of the effect is independent of the cause.
Q: How does the Kalam argument differ from Aquinas’ argument?
A: The Kalam infers a beginning cause rather than a sustaining cause, focusing on a temporal causal sequence with God as the beginning cause.
Q: What is one advantage of the Kalam argument?
A: It’s easier to explain how an atemporal God could create the world in one act compared to a sustained act of creation over time.
Q: Who brought the Kalam cosmological argument to prominence in the late 20th century?
A: W. L. Craig.
Q: What is the origin of the name ‘Kalam’?
A: It is named after the Islamic philosophy which first invented the argument in the 11th century.
Q: What is the first premise (P1) of the Kalam cosmological argument?
A: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Q: What is the second premise (P2) of the Kalam cosmological argument?
A: The universe began to exist (an infinite regress is not possible).
Q: What is the first conclusion (C1) derived from the premises of the Kalam cosmological argument?
A: So, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Q: What further steps are required in the Kalam argument to show that the cause of the universe is God?
A: Craig argues that the cause of the universe must have a personal explanation, i.e., it was intentionally created by an intelligent mind.
Q: Why does Craig argue that a scientific explanation cannot apply to the creation of the universe?
A: Scientific explanation applies within the universe and therefore cannot apply to its actual creation.
Q: What qualities must the cause of the universe have, according to Craig?
A: The cause must have the power to create a universe from nothing (ex nihilo), be outside time and space, and be a timeless, eternal being.
Q: Why is it no contradiction to claim that God doesn’t have a cause, according to the Kalam argument?
A: As a timeless, eternal being, God did not begin to exist.
Q: What conclusion does Craig draw about the cause of the universe?
A: These are qualities that God would have, so the cause of the universe is God.
Q: Who presents arguments for the impossibility of an actual infinite in the Kalam cosmological argument?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: W. L. Craig.
Q: What is an actual infinite according to W. L. Craig?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: An actual infinite is an infinite that exists in reality, not just theoretically.
Q: What problem does Craig highlight with sets having an infinite number of members?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: Sets with infinite members can be equal in size to their subsets.
Q: What illustration does Craig use to explain the problem with actual infinites?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: A library with an infinite number of books, half of which are red.
Q: In Craig’s illustration, what paradox arises with the set of red books and the set of all books?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: The set of red books is both smaller than and equal in size to the set of all books, as both are infinite.
Q: What does Craig claim about the application of actual infinites to reality?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: Problems arise when applying actual infinites to reality because it leads to paradoxes.
Q: What does Craig conclude about the existence of actual infinities?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: Actual infinities cannot exist because they lead to contradictions and paradoxes.
Q: Why is the concept of an actual infinite problematic according to Craig?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: Because it suggests that infinities can be both smaller than and equal in size to other infinities, which is paradoxical.
Q: How does the problem of actual infinities support the Kalam cosmological argument?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: It suggests that an infinite past is impossible, reinforcing the premise that the universe must have begun to exist.
Q: What is the significance of the impossibility of an actual infinite in the context of the Kalam argument?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: It supports the idea that the universe had a beginning and therefore must have a cause.
Q: How does Craig’s argument about actual infinites challenge the concept of an infinite regress?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: It implies that an infinite regress of events or causes is impossible, necessitating a first cause.
Q: What does Craig’s argument imply about the nature of the universe?
A strength of the Kalam argument is W. L. Craig’s arguments for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’
A: That the universe cannot be infinite in the past and must have a finite beginning.
Q: Who argues that an infinite series is actually possible?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: G. Cantor.
Q: What does G. Cantor say about the mathematical properties of infinite sets?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: They are simply radically different from those of finite sets.
Q: What examples does Craig use to illustrate the supposed absurdity of actual infinities?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: Craig uses examples like his infinite library and Hilbert’s Hotel.
Q: Why does Craig find it absurd for a subset to be both smaller than and equal to its set?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: Because such a situation is absurd for finite sets.
Q: According to Cantor, why is Craig’s conclusion about subsets and sets in infinite series incorrect?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: Because the properties of infinite sets allow for a subset to be equal in size to the set itself, which is not absurd but their defining characteristic.
Q: What is the defining characteristic of infinite sets according to Cantor?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: The possibility of a one-to-one relation between the number of members of infinite sets and those of their subsets.
Q: What misconception does Craig have about infinite sets, according to Cantor?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: Craig applies intuitions about finite sets to infinite sets, which is inappropriate.
Q: Why are our intuitions about libraries or hotels not applicable to infinite sets?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: Because those intuitions are based on finite sets, whereas infinite sets have different mathematical properties.
Q: How does Cantor’s argument challenge Craig’s assertion about the impossibility of actual infinities?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: By showing that the properties of infinite sets are not absurd but simply different from those of finite sets.
Q: What does Cantor’s perspective imply about the existence of actual infinities?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: That actual infinities can exist without leading to contradictions or paradoxes.
Q: How does Cantor’s argument affect the Kalam cosmological argument’s premise that the universe began to exist?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: It challenges the premise by suggesting that an infinite past is mathematically possible.
Q: What key concept does Cantor introduce to explain the nature of infinite sets?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: The concept of different mathematical properties and one-to-one relations between members of infinite sets and their subsets.
Q: Why is the possibility of actual infinities significant in the debate over the Kalam cosmological argument?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: It undermines the argument against an infinite regress of events, potentially allowing for an infinite past.
Q: What is the broader implication of Cantor’s argument for cosmological arguments?
Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.
A: It suggests that the universe could be infinite in the past, negating the necessity of a beginning cause.
