The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
I. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
as formulated by William Lane Craig
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
--
In Defense of the Kalam
“Why does the universe exist?”
Have you ever asked yourselves this question? This is a question that has hounded the thoughts of man since time immemorial. Well, the typical atheistic answer has always been we just do and that the universe just exists, eternally and uncaused, in other words, a brute fact. But recent advances in the fields of mathematics and cosmology does much to cast doubt on this claim.
--
I.I. The universe began to exist
I.I.I. Philosophical Confirmation of Premise 2.
Actual Infinites and Reality
The very first of these problems are problems to do with actual infinites existing in physical reality. Most mathematicians recognize that actual infinites are mere ideas in your mind that have no place in reality. Why? Well, when dealing with actual infinites, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? And an infinite series of temporal events just is such an actual infinite.
In order to unpack this point, we must first distinguish between actual infinites and potential infinites. An actual infinite, indicated by the symbol aleph ℵ0, is an infinite that is complete. It is a number that is greater than the set of all natural numbers, {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...}. That is to say, all the elements of the infinite set is already there. A potential infinite is a number that always approaches the infinite but never actually gets there, represented by the symbol of a lying-down 8, the lemniscate, ∞. Say, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9... Such an infinite is really indefinite instead of infinite.
A. Impossibility of an Actual Infinite
1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginning-less series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.
3. Therefore, a beginning-less series of events in time cannot exist.
Premise 1:
Premise 1 draws it's strength from the logical contradictions that we would expect to see were actual infinites be possible in reality. Hilbert's Hotel, Craig's favorite illustration of the concept, will serve to illustrate this contradictions. And I quote:
“As a warm-up, let’s first imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are occupied. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, “Sorry, all the rooms are full,” and that’s the end of the story. But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are occupied. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. “But of course!” says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4, and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were already occupied!”
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p118
Now, does anyone really think that such a Hotel could exist in reality? Obviously not. Our rationality then behooves to reject such a possibility but in doing so, we reject the possibility of an eternal universe.
Premise 2:
Premise 2 is obvious in it's implications. If the universe has existed for infinite time it would be an example of just such an actual infinite which we know to be absurd. Craig's choice of words here is interesting. By choosing to define time as events rather than as moments, he preempts a possible objection to the argument, that is that moments are relative.
Conlusion:
The conclusion we then draw from the argument is that the universe is not eternal and thus had a beginning to it's existence.
B. Impossibility of an Actual Infinite through Successive Addition
1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition.
2. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.
Premise (1) is fairly obvious. It states that a series of events in time, our temporal reality, is formed by successive addition of events. Say 1 second + 1 second + 1 second...
It is premise (2) that forms the core of the argument. It states that such a collection so formed is really a potential infinite, that is indefinite, and would never actually form an actual infinite. For think about it: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10... will always be approaching infinity but would never actually get there since an actual infinite is a number that is greater than the set of all natural numbers.
But since the series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition, and a series so formed cannot be actually infinite, it follows logically that the series of events in time is not actually infinite.
--
I.I.II. Scientific Confirmation
A. The Expansion of the Universe
This purely philosophical conclusions are supported by recent advances in the field of cosmology. The discovery of the cosmological red shift and cosmic background radiation served to confirm the hypothesis formulated by Friedman and Lemaitre. Both scientists formulated independently of one another a theory that eliminates the need for what Einstein called a 'fudge factor' in his General Theory of Relativity. They did this by predicting the expansion of the universe.
This prediction sparked what is called one, if not the single most, spectacular discovery in the history of science. As John Wheeler exclaims:
“Of all the great predictions that science has made over the centuries was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and to predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?”
- John A. Wheeler, “Beyond the Hole,” in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, 354.
This prediction was confirmed by two scientific discoveries over the past century, the discovery of the cosmological red shift by Edwin Hubble and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The expansion predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model thus predicts that as one goes back in time, the universe is compressed into a mathematical singularity prior to which nothing existed, not even time and space. The implication is that this singularity then forms a boundary in the finite past to space and time itself. PCW Davies comments:
“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.”
- P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, 78–79.
This singularity then expanded to form the universe in the event known as the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang model then, as formulated by Friedman and Lemaitre, predicts a universe that is not eternal in the past but began to exist a finite time ago. Now, scientists have been trying for the past century or so, to craft a model that precludes the universe beginning to exist but none so far has had much success. The 20th century history of cosmology can perhaps be described as a series of failed attempts to craft a working alternative model to the standard Big Bang model.
All these attempts however came to what could be called a watershed with the publication by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin of the theorem that now bears their name. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem predicts that any universe that is on average expanding even at a very minimal rate is not past-eternal and had an absolute beginning. This applies even to cyclic models of the universe and even to eternal inflationary multiverses. Vilenkin, in his book, is blunt about the implications of this theory,
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
- Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.
The BGV Theorem single-handedly sweeps aside all the most important attempts to find an alternate model of the universe that does not involve an absolute beginning.
B. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
There is a second scientific confirmation however that involves a law that is so well understood especially in comparison the the relatively controversial standard model. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, elements within a closed system tend to, over time, result in a state of rest, ie thermodynamic equilibrium. For examples of this law at work, take water inside a bath and disturb it. You will observe the disturbance gradually cease until a state of rest reemerges in the absence of further stimuli.
The argument then is elegant in it's simplicity. If the universe is such a closed system and has existed for infinite time, why is it not now in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium? The conclusion can only be that it has not, in fact, existed for infinite time, thus serving as further confirmation of premise (2).
--
I.II. The Causal Principle
In light of this evidence, atheists are forced to conclude that the universe, if it began to exist, came from nothing. But surely, this makes no sense? Out of nothing, nothing comes. A metaphyisical principle that is both necessary to science and a principal principle for our understand of the world. This causal principle is everyday confirmed in our experience of the world. It is confirmed empirically by every observation by science since the dawn of mankind. Empiricists thus have the strongest of motivations to accept premise (1).
--
I.III. Nature of the Cause / Conclusion
We have thus far deduced that the universe began to exist and it had a cause. What then can we deduce of the nature of this cause? It must be timeless since time began to exist. It must be spaceless since space began to exist. It must be immaterial and changeless prior to the creation of the universe. It must be enormously intelligent and enormously powerful to have caused the universe into being. And finally, it must be a 'personal mind'.
The Cause being a Personal Mind
1. An eternal cause precedes an eternal effect – a ball weighing down on a matress from eternity past will always have a matress being weighed down. If the cause is eternal, the effect must also be eternal bar 'agent causation'. The only possible exception is a personal mind that freely chooses to produce it's effect.
2. Only two objects are immaterial, abstract objects and minds – we know of only two things that fit the criterion if being immateral. Abstract objects, like numbers and propositions, and unembodied minds. It cannot be abstract objects since abstract objects are causally effete, ie they don't cause anything. It follow then that the cause is an unemboidied mind.
Infinite Regress of Causes
Occam's Razor will then shave off any further causes to just one necessary cause. We are thus left with a cause of the universe that is necessary in it's nature, is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and changeless, enormously powerful and enormously intelligent, and lastly personal. And that is what we minimally mean when we speak of God.
PS. This is not a copy-paste of some internet article. I wrote it myself according to my understanding of William Lane Craig's writings including but not limited to his book, Reasonable Faith, his article on the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, his article "Theistic Critiques of Atheism" in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism and his various articles in his website, www.reasonablefaith.com.
So, uh, discuss?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by XIII
