Author Topic: Objections to the Kalam  (Read 53 times)

DerekTheVExtreme

  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Objections to the Kalam
« on: July 15, 2017, 09:50:13 PM »
The Argument goes like this

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist

The universe has a cause



1. Equivocation fallacy between premises 2 and 3 with the word universe


In premises 2 it's used to mean "scientific universe aka all matter,space and time"

In premises 3 it's used to mean the "colloquial universe aka everything that exists, has existed or will ever exist."

2. Everything we have causes for comes out of material not nothing

3. The proponents of the argument say that the cause of the universe didn't have a cause which is special pleading

4.The proponents of the argument who use the argument are saying is that because science can't provide a causal explanation of the universe the universe must be God which is an argument from ignorance.

5. The argument doesn't in itself suggest a first cause

lucious

  • Posts: 3336
    • View Profile
Re: Objections to the Kalam
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2017, 10:41:10 PM »
There's no equivocation, these aren't even the understandings Craig uses.


The concern with premise 2 is the existence of time. For all intents and purposes this is the space-time continuum  researched by cosmology but can include "other time" in the sense of perhaps some immaterial non-natural reality beyond natural space or time.


This could be something like an angelic or daemonic realm. So there could be time beyond nature and inaccessible to science but there are two responses here:

1) The objector has resorted to utter desperation and essentially posited a supernatural reality to defeat the kalam. One for which there is no evidence whatsoever, is a gratuitous piece of metaphysics, and has really yielded the strength of the scientific evidence for the beginning.


2)Doesn't affect the argument at all. The premise is predominantly reached through philosophical argumentation showing that actual infinity is impossible. Period. There is no actual world, anywhere, where an infinite set of things could even possibly be instantiated.

The size of the universe makes no difference to the argument. It doesn't matter how many realms or planes of existence there are, or hyperspaces or multiverses. The philosophical argument is wholly unaffected.

 

anything