The Kalam argument is not even valid, never mind sound

[Robin]

Here is the Kalam Cosmological Argument as stated by William Lane Craig:

1.0 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.0.  The universe began to exist.

(Sub argument 1)
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist
(Sub argument 2)
2.21  A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2.22  The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23  Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.
​

3.0. Therefore, the universe has a cause


So the conclusion of the two sub arguments for 2.0 would have to be the same as 2.0 in order for the argument to be valid, ie all the lines in red have to be the same. But clearly they are not.

If I submitted something like this to my old DM lecturer he would have fixed me with one of his famous withering stares and asked me if I was quite sure I understood the concept of a proof.

Here is how it might be fixed:

B(x) df x begins to exist
C(x) df x has a cause
A(x) df x is an actual infinite
R(x) df x is an infinite temporal regress of events
S(x) df S is a collection formed by successive addition
T(x) df x is a temporal series of events

1 (x) B(x) implies C(x)

2 B(u)

2.11 not poss exists x A(x)
2.12 (x) R(x) implies A(x)
2.13 not poss exists x R(x)
2.14 not B(u) implies R(u)
2.15 not B(u) implies not poss exists u
2.16 exists u
2.17 B(u)

2.21 not poss exists x S(x) and A(x)
2.22 (x) T(x) implies S(x)
2.23 not poss exists x T(x) and A(x)
2.24 not B(u) implies T(u) and A(u)
2.25 not B(u) implies not poss exists u
2.26 exists u
2.27 B(u)
​

3 C(u)

So there are two new premisses that would need to be defended:

2.14 not B(u) implies R(u)
If the Universe did not begin to exist then it would be an infinite temporal regress of events

2.24 If the Universe did not begin to exist then it would be an infinite temporal series of events
not B(u) implies T(u) and A(u)

I can see why he would be reluctant to defend these premisses.

Of course the argument, even if sound, would only prove that the Universe has a cause, not a God. He offers a rather preposterous kludge to explain why this cause has to be a God. I would love to see him even try to formalise that kludge.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Of course the argument, even if sound, would only prove that the Universe has a cause, not a God. He offers a rather preposterous kludge to explain why this cause has to be a God. I would love to see him even try to formalise that kludge.

It gets more interesting from here. Basically, when Craig talks about the universe, he has some sufficient (not necessary) properties of it, such as time and physicality. So, if something caused time to exist, then it must be timeless itself. Because if the creator were temporal, then it would suffice as the universe, and then that would be absurd. Same goes for physical composition.

So why does uncreated, never non-existing matter require an infinite regress?

And then we could just ask the same question of God. Is he created? No? Well then where's that infinite regress I was promised?

Oh but God is outside of time. What does that even mean? As far as I can tell, a non-temporal entity doesn't do things that can only be described in a temporal manner. It doesn't perform actions. It doesn't change. It just is. For the life of me, I can't fathom how such a thing could be described as an intelligent entity. What on earth is non-temporal consciousness?

 

[Robin]

It gets more interesting from here. Basically, when Craig talks about the universe, he has some sufficient (not necessary) properties of it, such as time and physicality. So, if something caused time to exist, then it must be timeless itself. Because if the creator were temporal, then it would suffice as the universe, and then that would be absurd. Same goes for physical composition.

So why does uncreated, never non-existing matter require an infinite regress?

And then we could just ask the same question of God. Is he created? No? Well then where's that infinite regress I was promised?

Oh but God is outside of time. What does that even mean? As far as I can tell, a non-temporal entity doesn't do things that can only be described in a temporal manner. It doesn't perform actions. It doesn't change. It just is. For the life of me, I can't fathom how such a thing could be described as an intelligent entity. What on earth is non-temporal consciousness?

Yes the "non-temporal mind" or "non-temporal consciousness" could do with a bit of explanation.

 

[Dancing David]

So they just state ex catherdera that a universe can not be infinite, is there some sort of proof?

 

[HansMustermann]

And then we could just ask the same question of God. Is he created? No? Well then where's that infinite regress I was promised?

Bingo. The low hanging fruit of smackdowns there is that special pleading. Nothing infinite can exist... except God. Everything that exists was created... except God.

 

[Resume]

So they just state ex catherdera that a universe can not be infinite, is there some sort of proof?

I knew understood this part either.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here's where I have a problem:

1.0 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Is this weasel wording, or what?

 

[Dave Rogers]

2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.

Here's another piece of special pleading. If this is accepted as a premise, then the conclusion must be that God cannot exist.

2.21  A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2.22  The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23  Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

I think there's a fallacy of equivocation in there that's being used to mask a circular argument. Successive addition to an infinite collection will produce an actual infinite, so in fact 2.11 refers to a collection that starts with a finite number of elements, whereas the successive addition in 2.22 is not shown to commence with a finite number of elements. Therefore, I think sub argument 2 boils down to the tautology that if we assume time has a beginning, then time must have a beginning.

Dave

 

[Robin]

Here's where I have a problem:

Is this weasel wording, or what?

Yes, exactly. I think the mismatch between the conclusions of the subarguments and the premiss they are supporing is hiding the weasel wording.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Here's where I have a problem:

Is this weasel wording, or what?

Yup. Tl;dr version:

Everything has a cause unless I say it doesn't.

I say the universe had a cause.

I say God didn't need a cause.

Therefore, God caused the universe.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Here is the Kalam Cosmological Argument as stated by William Lane Craig:

1.0 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Is this weasel wording, or what?

Yes, this is where I stop anyone who tries this line of argument.