Majority of Christian Filipinos who are into debates here in Manila are oblivious with William lane Craig’s Kalam argument on the existence of God. These guys need an upgrade!
Therefore, I guess Filipino non-believers as well are also in the dark if they encounter the argument.
So a little bit of FYI.
The idea came from the works of the 6th century Alexandrian philosophical commentator and Christian theologian Joannes Philoponos. His ideas were later developed by medieval Islamic theologians, the Mutakallim and called it ‘Kalam’ which means ‘speech’.
The Kalam argument was brought to Christian attention in a debate between Franciscan theologian John of Fidanza (St. Bonaventure) and Thomas Aquinas over the existence of God.
The basic premises of the Kalam argument are quite simple:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Let us examine each premises.
Premise 1
Christian apologists insist that the first premise is obvious that it does not need an explanation. William Lane Craig calls this a metaphysical intuition.
Yet…Is God not included in premise 1?
Christian response: Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God is infinite and he is necessary.
Atheist: But according to Christian apologists such as Mr. Craig, actual infinity cannot exist. If God is infinite then He has lived through an infinite number of hours. This would contradict Mr. Craig’s claim that actual infinity does not exist.
Christian: God is outside our universe. He is also not subjected to time.
Atheist: So God is situated in a different place. Do you have any idea of a place that is without space and time? We can’t even call this ‘place’ a place since a place requires a “space”. Now if God created the universe from a timeless “place” that makes his action timeless (without beginning). Therefore, the act of creating the universe is an act of God that has no beginning, right? That’s an example again of an actual infinite…which sadly…according to Christian apologists like Mr. Craig, doesn’t exist.
Speaking of space…God occupy space on this er…place, right? If so, then how and when was this ‘place’ created? Surely, this ‘place’ also has a cause. If you said, God created this ‘place’ from another timeless-space less place then we’re now going into an Ad infinitum.
Christian: God created this ‘place’ on his own being.
Atheist: Hmmmmm…that sounded pantheistic. Anyway if this ‘place’ was created on God’s own being and God is eternal, then this place is eternal…again contradicting the Kalam argument.
Also, if God is immutable (doesn’t change) then this ‘place’ is also immutable…again a contradiction with the Kalam which says everything was created (finite and contingent).
Premise 2
We define ‘universe’ as the aggregate of all existing things – including time and space. Now, if “everything” is the same as the universe it contradicts one of the rules of the set theory that says, “No set should be considered a member of itself.” Yep…Georg Cantor (1845-1918). Now if the universe is not included (or the same as) everything, then how can its beginning (the universe) the same with the beginning of everything?
Christian: We…eh…GOD IS ALL-POWERFUL AND OMNIPOTENT!!! HE IS BEYOND HUMAN RULES AND LOGIC!!! YOUR SET RULES, PHILOSOPHY…WHATEVER WILL NEVER LIMIT GOD’S POWER!! IF HE WANTS BLUE TO BE GREEN OR YELLOW HE CAN DO IT!!! HE CAN DO EVERYTHING, EVEN IF IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR US!!! WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND GOD!!!
Atheist: Then Christian apologists like Mr. Craig and Mr. Giesler will be out of the job. Why will these guys spend money publishing books and why will I buy those books if God can’t be explained by human reasoning?
Going back to the subject, scientifically speaking, most Christians seem to be having trouble thinking of something that is “uncaused.” Believers speculate that these ‘uncaused’ events at the quantum level such as the spontaneous decay of a single atom of a heavy isotope are just a case of “just not knowing the cause.” Mr. Craig calls them as “probabilistic causality.” However, accidental causes are spontaneous, and spontaneous causes are not predetermined. According to David Hume (1711-1776) when we speak of ‘cause’, what we mean is an explanation for the event. So how can we explain spontaneous cause? Thus Mr. Craig’s “probabilistic causes are just another word for ‘uncaused cause”.
Now, since premise 1 and premise 2 can be refuted then there is no need to explain the conclusion.
Here's my call on IK's comments.
http://atheistangpinoy.blogspot.com/2010/10/kumak…
Enjoy and have a nice day.
Ganito na lang…if you can explain God and the nature of his being, might as well worship yourself!
And why worship someone that/whom you could fit in such a small space as the cranium?
If you think that it will only be a matter of time before man discovers all the laws of the universe and that all things are explainable, then fine! Maybe the Supreme Being was an Astrophysicist and an expert in quantum mechanics beforehand. It's hard for me to accept the concept of a tangible god. He is and He has to be, but that doesn't mean that he cannot just simply combine 2 atoms of hydrogen and oxygen to sustain carbon based life forms.
The point i think is that human logic is limited. isnt it possible that there is no cause nor creator? some people are happy with their beliefs. good for them 🙂
Hi John!
On timeless and spaceless:
“For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham’s Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe out of nothing.” —WLC <a href="http://(http://www.euroleadershipresources.org)/resource.php?ID=51)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.euroleadershipresources.org)/resource.php?ID=51)
Wow and assumption, on a premise of another assumption. Rock Solid! (Not)
The Christian responses are not accurate.
"Christian: God is outside our universe."
God is not outside. The statement is already self-contradicting. Being "outside" denotes a physical body and a physical place and being subjected to the material world/universe that we believe He created.
"HE IS BEYOND HUMAN RULES AND LOGIC!…IF HE WANTS BLUE TO BE GREEN OR YELLOW HE CAN DO IT!"
another self-contradicting statement in the line of saying "if he is all powerful that he can do everything then he can make a square with three sides".
Well if God is omnipotent, then why waste time letting his creation put each other through so much misery, as they kill and maim each other based on a mangled interpretation of said entity's teachings.
"HE IS BEYOND HUMAN RULES AND LOGIC!…IF HE WANTS BLUE TO BE GREEN OR YELLOW HE CAN DO IT!" – Reynor
who ever said Logic or Consistency is a Man made Principle? So Scientists MADE the rules which the universe follows. Very sad and poor understanding of Observation and Science Reynor – I think you should check out wikipedia on Scientific Process.
This is also a funny statement, because if there no such things as a GOD that makes sense or has some kind of consistency… this is Chaos and not a Diety. Awesome rational, I didn't realize the Catholic Church was worshiping Warhammer 40k or Cthulu Dieties 😀
<However, accidental causes are spontaneous, and spontaneous causes are not predetermined.>
There are at least 10 possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, including determined and indeterminate. It cannot be conclusively said that quantum mechanics are spontaneous and accidents, not yet! Moreover, physicists are having a hard time proving that quantum mechanics can cause a universe.
<So how can we explain spontaneous cause? Thus Mr. Craig’s “probabilistic causes are just another word for ‘uncaused cause”.>
Probabilistic Causation is not WLC's own. It is part of Philosophy.
So how does this dump the idea that “the universe began to exist,” if Pinoy Atheist affirms spontaneous cause of the universe? Did he not just agree with Premise 2?
" Moreover, physicists are having a hard time proving that quantum mechanics can cause a universe. "
Please cite some sources IK. I find that such a Claim requires the burden of proof, specially in the Field of Physics you are treading.
On Premise 2:
With the introductory statement:
<if “everything” is the same as the universe it contradicts one of the rules of the set theory that says, “No set should be considered a member of itself.”>
Pinoy Atheist just dumped Physics’ own definition of the universe <a href="http://(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe)” target=”_blank”>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe). I wonder how he could even start discussing about the universe with an atheist-physicist, if he could not even agree with the physicist in the definition of the universe.
With Pinoy Atheist’s question:
“Now if the universe is not included (or the same as) everything, then how can its beginning (the universe) the same with the beginning of everything?”
he should ask a physicist, because that is physics’ claim.
Pinoy Atheist claimed he dumped Premises 1 & 2. I did not even see any falsification that “The universe began to exist” in his presentation/imaginary discussion. I can’t even trace what he believes about the universe: if it eternal or temporal or what?
I think we all need an upgrade.
Since Pinoy Atheist wrote an imaginary discussion between an atheist (like himself) and a Christian (who subscribed to WLC's teachings), maybe he can update the discussion of those two guys:
On Premise 1:
Question 106: Is God Actually Infinite? <a href="http://(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7087)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7087) is WLC’s answer to the atheist’s question.
The Christian may not have been updated after all when he said: “God is outside our universe. He is also not subjected to time.” For WLC, God is “timeless, spaceless” <a href="http://(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5180),” target=”_blank”>(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5180), which is different from the Christian’s response.
Moreover, I wonder where the Christian got the idea when he said,“God created this ‘place’ on his own being.” Actually he was led into it by the previous answer of the atheist, because he himself gave the wrong answer to the atheist.
The universe is even ‘nothing’ as it has a mass/energy balance of exactly zero. So its juts a quantum fluctuation which was not immediately collapsing/annihilating back to the quantum foam but expanded for now 13,72 billion years. And we are just talking about our universe, in a multiverse scenario this is just one out of trillion other possibly existing universes. And the process of universe creation from new quantum fluctuations and black holes spurning out new baby universes all with possibly different fundamental constants (fine tuning !) is still ongoing.
So modern cosmology have already passed far beyond the Kalam argument for a single universe which needs a single creator, and first responses to the book ‘the grand design’ from Stephen Hawking (just mentioning this fact) has already resulted in the apologetic response of pulling the creator back from divine creator and fine tuning knob-twiddler now to the multiversal knob-twiddler.
So the gap from the unknowable beyond of space and time necessary existing multiverse creator deity via this universe, this galaxy, this solar system, this planet, this species during this time to the Judean fertility god, the good old bearded deity Yahweh walking around with Abraham in the middle east desert around 1900 BCE has become even bigger.
Saw this mentioned in Laurence Krause Cosmology Lecture. http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&tbs=vid:1&&…
On Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
The Big Bang theory merely states that our whole universe was in a hot, dense state then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started – wait – "without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant."
So the Big Bang theory never stated that the universe came from absolute nothing, but rather from a "hot, dense state" called a 'singularity' – which is NOT nothing – and so the premise that the universe began to exist is not a scientific statement.