Kalam cosmological argument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Kalām cosmological argument is a contemporary version of the cosmological argument taking its form from Kalām, a form of dialectical argument used in Islamic philosophy.[citation needed] It attempts to prove the existence of God by appealing to the principle of universal cause. Similar arguments are found in the theologies of Judaism (for example, in the work of Maimonides) and Christianity (for example in Thomas Aquinas), where it is known as the "uncaused cause" or "first cause" argument.
Contents |
[edit] The argument
Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has recently revived the argument and formulates it as follows:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Craig asserts that the first premise is "relatively uncontroversial". He defines "begins to exist" as "comes into being," and argues that we know from metaphysical intuition that things don't just pop into being uncaused. According to Craig, this establishes premise 1.
The second premise is usually supported by two arguments:
The first argument is philosophical in nature.
- An actual infinite cannot exist.
- A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
- Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
According to some authors, the definition of an actual infinite comes from set theory, some notions of which were known to the Arabs from the Hindus. However, there is little doubt[citation needed] that the concept of the actual infinite reached Arab scholars through the works of Aristotle. Aristotle's own account of actuality vs. potentiality is a fundamental part of his metaphysics. As actuality is often interpreted as the fulfillment of being, it is a short step in reasoning to reach the position that there is no actual being of infinite processes. The possibility of an actual infinite is often disputed, and is the focal point of this argument.
Craig describes the impossibility of an actual infinite like an endless bookcase. For example, imagine a bookcase that extends infinitely on which there is an infinite number of books, colored green and red, green and red, and so on. Obviously there would be an infinite number of books. Imagine removing all red colored books, leaving an infinite number of green books remaining, leading to the conclusion that "infinity" divided by two is also "infinity". Craig claims that the inability to sensibly extend the standard definitions of division on finite, nonzero numbers to include infinite numbers demonstrates the physical impossibility of actual infinities. Therefore, since the universe cannot have existed for an actually infinite amount of time, it must have (been caused to) come into existence at some finite time in the past.
The second argument is scientific in nature.[1]
- Evidence from the expanding galaxies in the universe
- Evidence from the laws of thermodynamics
In summary, the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the premise that the universe is not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates a cause for its existence. In keeping with the tradition of the kalam school, Craig goes so far as to say that this cause must be personal, but concedes that the argument goes no further in defining the attributes of the first cause.[2]
[edit] History and alternative formulations
A more concise expression of this argument is known as the argument from contingency, which found recent articulation by the late Mortimer Adler. In any form this argument has its ultimate origin in Aristotle's argument of the Prime Mover. This was later reconstituted by Maimonides and Aquinas for their respective monotheisms as well as by Ibn Russhd (Averroes) for Islam during a time in history when each of these faith systems had to come to grips with the intellectually modernizing effects of Aristotlean thought.
[edit] Objections involving actual infinities
Work by Georg Cantor demonstrates that actual infinities are consistent and useful objects. However this does not necessarily mean they exist in the real world, only that that can be used under controlled circumstances in mathematics. Some claim that Zeno's paradoxes exhibit examples of actual infinities in the real world - specifically, the number of points in time or points in space. Infinity is now considered a valid, functional and real object by mainstream mathematics. It is claimed by opponents of the Kalam Cosmological argument that the sets of natural numbers, rational numbers, and real numbers are actually infinite instead of potentially infinite, because they all contain an infinite number of elements. Some people claim the bookcase analogy above is flawed as it fails to distinguish between set inclusion and cardinality; claiming that there are as many green books as there are red and green books together is a consistent (if somewhat counterintuitive) position, once the notion of "as many" has been adjusted to tolerate infinite quantities. There are several ways to define consistent arithmetic upon groups of infinite sets; examples include cardinal arithmetic and the surreal numbers.
Further, time is considered continuous; under this view, within any finite passage of time an uncountably infinite number of distinct points of time are passed. Whether this constitutes passage of "infinite" time depends on whether cardinality or measure is being considered. In any case, the logical validity of actual infinites does not invalidate the Kalam cosmological argument since it is only required that the universe has not existed for an actually infinite amount (by measure) of time.
[edit] Objections from analysis
One immediate objection to cosmological arguments such as the Kalam argument was raised by Bertrand Russell in his collection "Why I Am Not A Christian". If a divine being exists, then that being must have a cause. This leads to an infinite regression of causes, which undermines the use of this argument to support the existence of one or more supreme divine beings. Common responses to this objection include assuming, proving, or defining the first cause to not be caused itself, or to be somehow "outside" of time and/or space. Aristotle takes as his first cause the final fixed point in the regression, so that the entity discussed is not necessarily the creator of the universe, but rather the agent responsible for the chain of causes that eventually led the universe to come into being.
A second objection is that the Kalam argument does not establish the existence of any particular deity, nor even describe any properties that the "first cause" must have beyond that of predating the universe and (eventually) causing its existence. The argument provides equal support for Christianity, Islam, a supernatural (but not spiritual) creating force, and a scientific law that merely resides "outside" of the causal universe as we experience it. This is not so much a logical flaw as a fundamental limitation; after the Kalam argument attempts to demonstrate the existence of the first cause, other arguments are typically introduced to attempt to establish its nature. This is the line that Craig describes when claiming that "the simple syllogism lying at the heart of the Kalam cosmological argument should be supplemented by a conceptual analysis of what it is to be a cause of the universe, an exercise which serves to recover many of the traditional divine attributes." [1]
[edit] Objections rejecting the premises
One challenge to the argument would be to question why the first premise is the most natural to come out of the normal laws and practical experience of causation. One could build similar arguments from any number of inferences from the human experience of causality and reach different conclusions: the Universe does not have a cause (causation requires antecedence) or God, or any cause for the Universe, requires a cause (any thing that exists has a cause). There is no self-evident justification for accepting the validity of the Kalam argument's first premise than any other similar supposition one might make. Indeed there are arguments that could be made against it: a beginning only has bearing on causal matters as a guarantee of antecedence - there could be gradual processes that have no defined beginning, yet allow for antecedence, and still require causation. These objections, though not logically demonstrating the argument as invalid, reduces the force of the argument as a whole considerably.
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and showed that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether Inductive or Deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent. Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the Universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.The rules of causality only make sense in the context of time, which obviously did not exist before the creation of the universe, thus it is nonsensical to speak of pre-universal "causes", specifically a First Cause, when discussing the origins of the universe (unless the First Cause initiates time or has the initiation of time as a component; which it must in order to be the First Cause).
Defenders of the Kalam argument would respond to this claim by saying that it seems to implicitly assume naturalism and the non-existence of ontological properties, and hence is question-begging. Defenders would also say that things do begin to exist because they have essential properties entailed in them (buildings, people, etc.) which did not exist eternally past. While the particles may have existed, the actual thing (which has essential properties to it) did begin to exist by way of an antecedent cause [2]
Another challenge to the argument would be to question whether finite objects can self-cause. Philosopher Quentin Smith states that "the universe...both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist."[3] He says that the whole universe does not need an extra cause; if all parts of the universe cause each other to exist, that logically implies that the whole exists. Smith claims that "the first state of the universe consists of an indefinitely or infinitely long chain of simultaneous events that are causally connected to each other." This view may rely on two controversial concepts: that of a physically existing actual infinite; and that of a cause simultaneous with its effect.
Defenders of the Kalam argument would say that for the universe to be self-caused is an inherent logical contradiction, since in order for something to cause itself to begin to exist, it would already have to exist.
Premise two of the argument states that the universe began to exist. Critics might argue that the universe could well always have existed. Defenders of the argument might respond with reference to the logical impossibility of infinite time and the big bang theory. However, "always" might in this context mean, "since the beginning of time", where time is finite. Defenders would possibly say that even so, the universe still began to exist. However it is questionable whether a cause would really be required if the universe didn't come into existence from previous non-existence, which would under these conditions not be the case. Premise one of the argument would then be in question.
Further criticism of the argument is that matter or energy has never been observed to begin to exist because of the law of conservation of energy. Objects only form from previously existing matter. There is thus no way of knowing whether the first premise is really valid.
[edit] Objections from scientific theory
The Big Bang theory, though generally held to be committed to a finite age of the universe, does not always commit to a view of infinity that supports the Kalam argument. Mathematical models of the Big Bang generally end in a singularity that has a location in time that is a finite distance from any given event. However, there is also an infinite number of events between this singularity and any given point. This behavior of space and time is allowed by the differential geometry and topology underlying general relativity, the physical theory on which the Big Bang theory is based. Additionally, some Big Bang models are infinite in spatial extent or have an infinitely long past, such as some models devised by Georges Lemaître or Sir Arthur Eddington. However, as Phillip James Edwin Peebles writes, in his "Principles of Physical Cosmology" as well as other publications, the Big Bang theory does not really concern itself with universal origins (cosmogony).
Developments in quantum mechanics have resulted in the concept of imaginary time, which may provide a mechanism whereby the big bang is not considered a singularity at all and does not require an external prior cause. For some, the very presence of a second dimension of time calls into question the simple one-dimensional nature of causation central to the Kalam argument.
[edit] Notes
[edit] Further reading
- William Lane Craig. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979) ISBN 0-06-491308-2
- Rüdiger Vaas. Time before time Time before Time: How to Avoid the Antinomy of the Beginning and Eternity of the World.
- J.P. Moreland. Scaling the Secular City: A Defence of Christianity (1987) ISBN 0-8010-6222-5. Chapter 1: "The Cosmological Argument".
- William Lane Craig. A Swift and Simple Refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (1999) [4]
- Paul Copan and William Lane Craig. Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (2004) Chapters 6-8.
- Derrick Abdul-Hakim. God's Paradox: A Comment on William Lane Craig's Cosmological Argument (2006) Presented at San Jose State University Philosophy Conference
- William Lane Craig. Youtube takes out the Cosmological argument? (2008) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6515
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Kalam Cosmological Argument The argument laid out in full with logical backing.
