The Kalam cosmological argument from temporal causation

Question 1

Q: What is the Kalam cosmological argument based on?

Answer 1

A: Temporal causation, where a cause brings about its effect after it, and the continued existence of the effect is independent of the cause.

Question 2

Q: How does the Kalam argument differ from Aquinas’ argument?

Answer 2

A: The Kalam infers a beginning cause rather than a sustaining cause, focusing on a temporal causal sequence with God as the beginning cause.

Question 3

Q: What is one advantage of the Kalam argument?

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Q: Who brought the Kalam cosmological argument to prominence in the late 20th century?

Answer 4

A: W. L. Craig.

Question 5

Q: What is the origin of the name ‘Kalam’?

Answer 5

A: It is named after the Islamic philosophy which first invented the argument in the 11th century.

Question 6

Q: What is the first premise (P1) of the Kalam cosmological argument?

Answer 6

A: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

Question 7

Q: What is the second premise (P2) of the Kalam cosmological argument?

Answer 7

A: The universe began to exist (an infinite regress is not possible).

Question 8

Q: What is the first conclusion (C1) derived from the premises of the Kalam cosmological argument?

Answer 8

A: So, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Question 9

Q: What further steps are required in the Kalam argument to show that the cause of the universe is God?

Answer 9

A: Craig argues that the cause of the universe must have a personal explanation, i.e., it was intentionally created by an intelligent mind.

Question 10

Q: Why does Craig argue that a scientific explanation cannot apply to the creation of the universe?

Answer 10

A: Scientific explanation applies within the universe and therefore cannot apply to its actual creation.

Question 11

Q: What qualities must the cause of the universe have, according to Craig?

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

Q: Why is it no contradiction to claim that God doesn’t have a cause, according to the Kalam argument?

Answer 12

A: As a timeless, eternal being, God did not begin to exist.

Question 13

Q: What conclusion does Craig draw about the cause of the universe?

Answer 13

A: These are qualities that God would have, so the cause of the universe is God.

Question 14

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’

Answer 14

A: W. L. Craig.

Question 15

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’

Answer 15

A: An actual infinite is an infinite that exists in reality, not just theoretically.

Question 16

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’

Answer 16

A: Sets with infinite members can be equal in size to their subsets.

Question 17

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’

Answer 17

A: A library with an infinite number of books, half of which are red.

Question 18

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’

Answer 18

A: The set of red books is both smaller than and equal in size to the set of all books, as both are infinite.

Question 19

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’

Answer 19

A: Problems arise when applying actual infinites to reality because it leads to paradoxes.

Question 20

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’

Answer 20

A: Actual infinities cannot exist because they lead to contradictions and paradoxes.

Question 21

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’

Answer 21

A: Because it suggests that infinities can be both smaller than and equal in size to other infinities, which is paradoxical.

Question 22

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’

Answer 22

A: It suggests that an infinite past is impossible, reinforcing the premise that the universe must have begun to exist.

Question 23

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’

Answer 23

A: It supports the idea that the universe had a beginning and therefore must have a cause.

Question 24

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’

Answer 24

A: It implies that an infinite regress of events or causes is impossible, necessitating a first cause.

Question 25

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’

Answer 25

A: That the universe cannot be infinite in the past and must have a finite beginning.

Question 26

Q: Who argues that an infinite series is actually possible?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 26

A: G. Cantor.

Question 27

Q: What does G. Cantor say about the mathematical properties of infinite sets?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 27

A: They are simply radically different from those of finite sets.

Question 28

Q: What examples does Craig use to illustrate the supposed absurdity of actual infinities?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 28

A: Craig uses examples like his infinite library and Hilbert’s Hotel.

Question 29

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.

Answer 29

A: Because such a situation is absurd for finite sets.

Question 30

Q: According to Cantor, why is Craig’s conclusion about subsets and sets in infinite series incorrect?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 30

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.

Question 31

Q: What is the defining characteristic of infinite sets according to Cantor?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 31

A: The possibility of a one-to-one relation between the number of members of infinite sets and those of their subsets.

Question 32

Q: What misconception does Craig have about infinite sets, according to Cantor?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 32

A: Craig applies intuitions about finite sets to infinite sets, which is inappropriate.

Question 33

Q: Why are our intuitions about libraries or hotels not applicable to infinite sets?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 33

A: Because those intuitions are based on finite sets, whereas infinite sets have different mathematical properties.

Question 34

Q: How does Cantor’s argument challenge Craig’s assertion about the impossibility of actual infinities?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 34

A: By showing that the properties of infinite sets are not absurd but simply different from those of finite sets.

Question 35

Q: What does Cantor’s perspective imply about the existence of actual infinities?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 35

A: That actual infinities can exist without leading to contradictions or paradoxes.

Question 36

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.

Answer 36

A: It challenges the premise by suggesting that an infinite past is mathematically possible.

Question 37

Q: What key concept does Cantor introduce to explain the nature of infinite sets?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 37

A: The concept of different mathematical properties and one-to-one relations between members of infinite sets and their subsets.

Question 38

Q: Why is the possibility of actual infinities significant in the debate over the Kalam cosmological argument?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 38

A: It undermines the argument against an infinite regress of events, potentially allowing for an infinite past.

Question 39

Q: What is the broader implication of Cantor’s argument for cosmological arguments?

Counter: An infinite series is actually possible.

Answer 39

A: It suggests that the universe could be infinite in the past, negating the necessity of a beginning cause.