The Kalam Cosmological argument is one of the most well known, and most often used argument in all of Christian apologetics. The argument can be presented in this form:
1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause.
2. The universe came into existence.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The logic in the argument is sound, it's a simple (1) if p then q. (2) p. (3) therefore q. So I need to attack a premise in order to refute the argument.
It's worth noting that this argument doesn't support any specific God. Alone, it is only sufficient to show a deistic God at best.
I feel it is necessary to define what it means to have a "cause". The main justification for premise 1 is "just think about it". That's all they give. They talk about the absurdity of anything that "happens" without a cause. The problem with this is there are two causes that produce an effect. An efficient cause and a material cause. You can't build a log cabin without any logs, but the theist is trying to show that God created the universe out of nothing, building the log cabin with no logs.
For the next objection, I feel it is necessary to define "come into existence". Come into existence means (1) p exists at t. (2) t is the first time in which p exists. (3) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which p exists timelessly. (4) p's existing at t is a tensed fact.
In the eternalist view of time, the universe's existence is not a tensed fact. There is no objective now, it exists a four dimensional block, where the block is time. Thus, it never actually comes into existence.
If we assume that everything that comes into existence, or anything that begins, has a cause, when what about our choices? You have to trace back our choices to something, so what? Our wills cannot be caused by nothing, because they're tensed, temporal beings, or "things". Notice that no matter what t you try to trace it back too, you will either find that will is determined, or it is random. Either way, our choices are not our own.
But let's ignore all of that, and look at some of the justification for premise 2. One is the view that the second law of thermodynamics implies that the universe will eventually go into a state of heat death, because every time there is an energy transfer some energy will be lost as heat. I'm not a physicist, but there are models of the universe that allow for a recollapse of the universe, so it's like a clock reset. You can read about it here: http://www.universetoday.com/37018/big-crunch/
Another justification for the second premise is that an infinite past is impossible. (Everything from this point on was copied from a previous short post.) A lot of theists believe that an actual infinite is impossible. However, if God existed eternally, then there would be an infinite past, and thus, an actual infinite. So they say God exists outside of time to avoid that problem.
I feel that they cannot actually say this avoids the problem:
Consider, will the universe ever end? Will there be an eternity in heaven? If there was an eternity in the past, then we can consider that an actual infinite, but what about an eternal future?
Think about God existing outside of time, but having an infinite future? If God existed outside of time, and he created something, and it ended, he would experience it in literally no time. But what if God existed outside of time when there is an endless universe? Would God experience this in no time? That would imply an actual infinite.
To help someone understand this problem, imagine there is a world where all that exists is someone counting for eternity, it never ends. Now imagine that there is a being watching over it, which exists at literally every possible point. This being literally saw all of the counting. This is clearly an actual infinite.
The thing about this is, I don't think an actual infinite really is impossible. We simply don't have a solid understanding of what they are. I'll let the theist decide what they think.
No comments:
Post a Comment