Unsupported Premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Monday June 21, 2004
Dr. William Lane Craig‘s “Kalam Cosmological Argument” is one of the more sophisticated and (in some circles) popular arguments for the existence of God. Unfortunately, like so many other theistic arguments, it suffers from a fatal flaw that the author prefers to gloss over instead of address directly.
Francois Tremblay addresses the problems at Talk Reason, in particular the faulty premise of "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence":
What evidence does he have to prove that whatever begins to exist must have a cause? In his opening case, he states: “I really don't think that it's necessary because the premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its existence I think is so intuitively obvious that scarcely anybody could sincerely deny that it is false.“
He does support it elsewhere by using two arguments: our observation of the caused entities around us, and causality as a principle of human thought. Dr. Craig is no doubt aware, however, that to infer a necessary causality on a whole -- the universe -- on the basis of observation of such attribute in the parts -- the existents around us - is a fallacy of composition. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus he cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter.
Despite being a sophisticated and, at least in spirit, scientifically-oriented argument, Dr. Craig's version of the Kalam Argument fails to justify any of its premises. It is based on a number of assumptions -- that temporality implies the existence of a beginning, and that the existence of a beginning implies a cause -- which are not logical or scientific. Its only valid finding -- that infinity cannot be actualized -- is trivial. Furthermore, the conclusion that the hypothetical Creator is changeless is also unsupported and contradicts the rest of the argument. It is unclear how the only alternatives for an atemporal being are to be changeless or to experience an infinite regress of changes.
Craig’s argument is complex, so Tremblay’s critique is necessarily complex as well. Nevertheless, it is worth reading through because the problems in Craig’s can often be found in other forms of the Cosmological Argument. If Craig’s fails in this way, it is reasonable to think that others will also fail and that there is currently no Cosmological Argument that provides a reasonable basis for theism.
Read More:
Comments
Pointing out a weakness in a theory does not necessarily refute it. Aquinas pointed out in the 13th century, that reason could prove neither that the universe has always existed or that it had a creation event. Thus it would be just as illogical to posit that something exists, without some antecedent causal event. Science is about finding the causes of how things come to be. Tremblay would fall into a contradiction, if he insisted on the supremacy of scientific knowledge (which is a knowledge of causality), and then shifted categorically from the realm of efficient causality and projected the former assumptions to one of a ontological claim (which is teleological in its analysis). A claim that cannot be varified by the very nature of the methodology in which he utilizes. Nice try, but I’m afraid this critique does not prove that God does not exist nor that their is a Creato of the universe. But keep thinking.
That wasn’t the purpose of the critique, so I’m not at all bothered. The purpose of the critique was to show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument does not do what it is intended to do, which is prove that some sort of god or creator exists. The failure of the KCA is the failure of the necessary theistic project to justify theism itself.
It’s noteworthy that you don’t offer any criticisms of the substance of the critique; you only criticize it for something it was never trying to do in the first place. That’s called a “straw man” argument.
Perhaps a clarification is in order.
I don’t see how my response is straw man argument, by pointing out that the ciritque of the Kalam argument is a confusion of categories. The critique is applicational only at the efficient causal level of analysis, while Craig’s argument is ontological. Bertrand Russell, understood this in his famous debate with the theist Copleston, and could only in the final analysis offer the rebuttal, and (not an exact quote) but why is it that the universe has to have a cause? This implies that either, he thought the universe was self-caused (ex nihilo) or was perhaps eternal.
It’s a straw man because it criticizes the argument for failing to achieve something it was never supposed to do in the first place.
I must respectfully still disagree. One must have the correct level on analysis in order to be relevent in their critique. For example, if one were to try and make a critique of a sociological agrument by employing a critique based upon quantum physics. Or a critique against a macro-argument utilizing a micro argument. That’s all I’m saying.
On in all though, I think you have a great website, and is indeed an awesome service to those few of us out there who are interested in philosophy, be it the theist or atheist.
Cheers!