Fatal Flaw in Craig's Kalam Argument

[skepticbud]

William Lane Craig, a popular supporter of this argument for god's existence, states it as follows:

Premise 1 - Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
Premise 2 - The Universe began to exist.
Conclusion - Therefore the universe had a cause.

Where is the fatal flaw?

"begins to exist" is perfectly meaningless.

Sure, we can imagine something coming from nothing, because we've all read the bible and watched cartoons, but in the real world, there is no such thing. The first premise has about as much real meaning as "whatever fwiptorks to bipwuz, has a cause."

Do you have any proof that "begins to exist" (formation without the aid of pre-existing material) refers to any known process?

If not, then how can a meaningless phrase that refers to nothing in the universe, function correctly as a premise in an argument?

thanks,
skepticbud

[Jaltus]

So you are assuming perpetual existence, which is just as meaningless.

[johnransom]

Today @ 02:13 PM
skepticbud:

Do you have any proof that "begins to exist" (formation without the aid of pre-existing material) refers to any known process?

And Craig would scoff at your objection. The answer is, quite simply, time. Time cannot be infinite because of the impossibility of infinity by successive addition and must therefore have had a beginning, simultaneous with the beginning of the universe. Did you seriously think Craig had not addressed this blatantly obvious counter?

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 09:04 PM
johnransom:


And Craig would scoff at your objection. The answer is, quite simply, time. Time cannot be infinite because of the impossibility of infinity by successive addition and must therefore have had a beginning, simultaneous with the beginning of the universe. Did you seriously think Craig had not addressed this blatantly obvious counter?

To say time had a beginning in time, makes little sense.

At what time did the Universe not exist? The Universe has always existed. There has never been a time when the Universe did not exist.

And don't forget that Kalaam says all our freewill actions (which begin to exist) must have a cause. And that cause began to exist, and so needs a cause. And that cause's cause began to exist, and so needs a cause.

And so we bid a fond farewill to the illogical and unprovable concept of contra-causal freedom - kalaamed out of existence. All freedom has a beginning, and so needs a cause.

[Jaltus]

At what time did the Universe not exist? The Universe has always existed. There has never been a time when the Universe did not exist.

Do you have any evidence for this?

After all, asserting something does not make it true.

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 08:48 PM
Jaltus:

So you are assuming perpetual existence, which is just as meaningless.

No, flaws in the Kalam do not guarantee that the only other option is perpetual existence.

Please provide a "rebuttal" to my original argument. "Begins to exist" is meaningless and is not defended simply by responding "but perpetual existence is also wrong!"

skepticbud

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 09:04 PM
johnransom:


And Craig would scoff at your objection. The answer is, quite simply, time. Time cannot be infinite because of the impossibility of infinity by successive addition and must therefore have had a beginning, simultaneous with the beginning of the universe. Did you seriously think Craig had not addressed this blatantly obvious counter?

First, "time" means nothing. It is nothing but the man's recording of the fluctuating distances between planetary bodies. It is absolutely nothing without man and his sun-dial.

Second, you must use verbs to describe your fallacious view that time "began", but all verbs require to time to exist before the action and not just after the action. That's your problem, so you might want to consider that your inability to talk coherently about a phrase that makes no sense ("beginning of time"?) might possibly be due to the fact that the concept you suggest is itself flawed. I could also make hash out of language trying to describe what square circles look like, but you would just interupt and tell me that the fact that language cannot adequately express the idea proves that the idea itself is logically flawed somehow, and you would be right.

Third, I don't see any evidence that the universe began, and I've been reading on creationist cosmology for years. Ya wanna debate the soundness of the Big Bang theory? You can't do it without being more specific, because like the bible, the "big bang" isn't even believed in the same way by all who hold to the BB. The inflation model is particulary notorious for being the purest form of ad hoc argumentation to ever grace the earth.

skepticbud

[Jaltus]

Okay, begins to exist is the difference between t = 0 and t = 1.

In physics, we can see things begin to exist and cease to exist all the time, though not ex nihilo.

Matter changes to energy, energy changes to matter. The material can cease to exist, and it can begin to exist.

I am not sure why you think "begin to exist" holds no meaning. It holds plenty of meaning.

When does a fetus "begin to exist?" Most scientists will say at conception.

Hence, begins to exist holds a meaning for them. Why are you one of those that has a problem with it?

[Jaltus]

Oh, another thing I noticed is that you assume WLC refers to creatio ex nihilo, but that is not part of the syllogism, and you therefore have to import it into the argument to make your case.


You do so here:

Do you have any proof that "begins to exist" (formation without the aid of pre-existing material) refers to any known process?

Also, as i said above, matter comes into existence through conversion from energy, and energy is not a material.

[stevencarrwork]

Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
Jaltus:

Do you have any evidence for this?

After all, asserting something does not make it true.

Yes it does.

When it is a tautology.

There never was a moment of time when time did not exist.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 01:13 AM
Jaltus:

Okay, begins to exist is the difference between t = 0 and t = 1.

I am not sure why you think "begin to exist" holds no meaning. It holds plenty of meaning.
Hence, begins to exist holds a meaning for them. Why are you one of those that has a problem with it?

'Begins to exist' has no meaning for time itself.

Or at least, not the meaning Craig wants to give it. (ie that there was a time when time did not exist)

And how does Craig (not the most omniscient of people) know that *eveything* that begins to exist must have a cause? Has he examined everything that has ever begun to exist? Including the Universe itself?

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 01:16 AM
Jaltus:

Also, as i said above, matter comes into existence through conversion from energy, and energy is not a material.

Energy is a material.

If not, you have come up with a very easy disproof of materialism :-)

[Jaltus]

Hmmm, material is defined as (American Heritage):

Composed of or pertaining to physical substances.

I do not see how energy fits this definition. Maybe I am thinking too much like a physics Geek.

Steven,

The assertion does not make it true, reality makes it true. Of course, this could just be a semantic song and dance, so there is no need to go there.

'Begins to exist' has no meaning for time itself.

Or at least, not the meaning Craig wants to give it. (ie that there was a time when time did not exist)

The biggest problem in this debate is that time is an undefined word. Nobody has ever come up with a definition of time as a concept. There are physical delimitations of it (t = d/v), but no formal definitions, AFAIK. Time is not just the measurement of time, for hours and minutes are the measurement of time.

The problem is that time assumes material. If there is no material, there is no time (notice that if there is energy but no material, there is still no time, which is an interesting avenue of discussion, if you wish).

And how does Craig (not the most omniscient of people) know that *eveything* that begins to exist must have a cause? Has he examined everything that has ever begun to exist? Including the Universe itself?

Tell me how scientists posit man's evolution, and you'll have your own answer.

By the way, there is no such thing as being fractionally omniscient. You either are or are not, by definition (well, I guess that omniscient here refers to infinite knowledge then).

[Socrates]

Craig HAS addressed something similar to pathetic argument. The philosophically ignorant Paul Davies argued that it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

Craig responded in "God, Creation and Mr Davies", Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 37:163–175. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says that the first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

[Sauron]

Today @ 12:13 PM
skepticbud:

William Lane Craig, a popular supporter of this argument for god's existence, states it as follows:

Premise 1 - Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
Premise 2 - The Universe began to exist.
Conclusion - Therefore the universe had a cause.

Where is the fatal flaw?

"begins to exist" is perfectly meaningless.

Sure, we can imagine something coming from nothing, because we've all read the bible and watched cartoons, but in the real world, there is no such thing. The first premise has about as much real meaning as "whatever fwiptorks to bipwuz, has a cause."

Do you have any proof that "begins to exist" (formation without the aid of pre-existing material) refers to any known process?

If not, then how can a meaningless phrase that refers to nothing in the universe, function correctly as a premise in an argument?

thanks,
skepticbud

"Begins to exist" is Craig's way of biasing the argument. He can't very well say "Everything that exists has a cause" - for if he did, then he'd have to include his god in that statement.

So he creates a definition of existence that suddenly divides all existence into two buckets:
1) things that exist, but had no beginning; and
2) things that exist, and did have some kind of beginning

the problem is that we have evidence for (2), but none for (1). So he is creating an ad hoc special sub-class for existence, where no supporting evidence for that sub-class exists.

It's just special pleading, with a lot of fancy makeup and costume jewelry, in reality.