In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Kalam Cosmological Argument
Kalam cosmological argument refers to an exercise the positive apologetics which is aimed at proving that truly God exists. Kalam cosmological argument has become an argument which is extremely popular both in philosophy of religion as well as in apologetics. It was developed in the middle ages by the Muslim philosophers and it was brought back into the spotlight by William Lane Craig, a Christian philosopher. This argument has been extremely significant in defending philosophical position of the theistic worldviews. Although this argument has roots in medieval and ancient philosophy, proposition of argument and modern interpretation has deemed craig’s work to be formative. Kalam cosmological argument is criticized for various reasons.
Although craig is able to demonstrate all this, his argument does not succeed because it is unable to show or prove that God exists. His argument has nothing to say concerning the moral character of God and especially regarding particular Gods. This kind of objection is exemplified through “Evil God” hypothesis by Stephen Law, where there exists a personal creator of universe who is uncaused and who sans the world is changeless, beginningless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial and extremely powerful. The mere disparity is that this God is extremely malevolent. According to Kalam argument, Stephen law argues that this Evil God is as probable as the good God, thus the kalam argument doesn’t demonstrate that the good God actually exists, and even does not form a component of a cumulative case of such a God (Djuric, 2011).
Craig’s reply to the criticism by Mackie of the first sub-argument is quite perplexing. He admits that the countless set theory is a system which is logically consistent. As a result, it seems that he admits that there exist logically possible worlds where various infinites obtain. Though, he then maintained that the question which is significant is whether such an unlimited can be obtained or instantiated in the actual world. This question can be understood well using the following suggestions. The first proposition is that the problem is if in the actual world there are any infinites. The second proposition is that the issue is if in the real world there is a possibility of having any infinites. The third suggestion involves the question if in any world there is a possibility of having any infinites (Craig, 2014).
The third suggestion can be immediately dismissed since dismissed by the fact that craig admitted that there exists some world with infinites. The first suggestion can be dismissed also because craig is unable to give defence of this particular claim. He claimed that the kalam argument’s proponent focuses on the claim that in the real world there exist no infinites. However, craig does not provide any further evidence to prove the claim there is no infinites in the real earth beyond the notion that supposing otherwise would be absurd. Because Mackie does not agree with this intuition, this thought cannot be decisive (Nowacki, 2007).
Craig’s key reply to the criticisms by Mackie is very weak. Mackie’s argument was that there was a possibility that something can begin to exist despite it being uncaused. In order for the Kalam cosmological argument to successfully claim that there is no possibility of something to being existing although uncaused it is supposed to come up with arguments which portrays that this claim has a logical inconsistency. Therefore this argument cannot succeed since Craig was unable to validate his claim through providing convincing arguments which would assist in establishing this claim. Mackie proposes that neither of the arguments is true. He added that there is no superior reason to claim that either of the arguments is true. Finally, Mackie argues that, eve if the objections were to fail, there were reasons for assumption that the theist cannot constantly maintain that God can subsist uncaused and also the universe cannot subsist uncaused. Kalam also failed to provide supportive details to back up his argument. Mackie proposes that it is truly plausible things can subsist uncaused (Rasmussen, 2009).
Mackie also propose that the presumptions that are necessary to make the argument inconsistent with theists’ assumptions. The infinite set theory fails to apply the ontological commitment regarding the real world. In the actual world the illogicality in question do not come about since actual infinite does not exist. The ontological commitment holds that only finite collection that exists. Proponents of Kalam argument totally infer that any ‘real’ earthly order must have a preliminary point. Mackie argues that from any instant, there is only a predetermined extent to the present is appropriate if those sequences maintain this property. Mackie’s argument is that for each position in the series of successive accumulation, there is a former one which it develops from addition. To presume that there is any possibility that the cycle is not derived by successive addition is basically to express a discrimination against the assertion that there is likelihood for such sequences (Nowacki, 2007).
In addition proponents of Kalam fail to provide arguments that are logically consistent with the claim that something can exist uncaused. Proponents of Kalam can suppose that things can exist uncaused, but there are adequate reasons in the universe to believe that the world is controlled by some conservation laws that make sure there is no occurrence of such things. Kalam proponents’ argument is deeply devoted to the stipulation of God as an uncaused and eternal being. This might be understood to mean that perhaps the universe is an uncaused and eternal being. There is no righteous approach of believing that neither God has this possessions or the universe. Kalam criticizers provide appropriate points that reveal that, even though the argument can be sound, but they failed to prove that God exist. Oppy criticizes Kalam by saying that it is not conditionally rationally persuasive for its projected audience. He supported his notion by adding that the argument depend on metaphysical and physical theory which stakeholders of the intended audience rebuff. The argument is that Kalam argument does not propose that God exists, yet the universe exists (Oppy, 1991).
Kalam is greatly criticized due to the fact that they do not elaborate whey God does not need a cause if the universe needs a course. The argument is clear that God does not need a cause since it is only things that exist have a cause, but they fail to explain how the universe started to exist. There are inadequate reasons to support that the universe existed due to the causal principles in the Kalam argument. Protestations that things at a first instant of time need no explanation is very unpersuasive, because they do not give supportive reasons whey there is a pertinent difference in the underlying question between first instances and embedded time moments. The kalam case that “The universe began to exist” is limited since it fails to explain how it started to exist and when. It is also an assumption that the world had existed eternally in the ancient times. Alexander criticized kalam argument by saying, “any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history, cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past space-time boundary” (Pitts, 2008).
Kalam argument fails to explain how the universe started to exist and thus the second premise of this premise is also limited due to this beginning less model. Kalam third premise is that everything that exists has a cause which is a controversial conclusion. There are no reasons provided to prove that God exist. It is unsatisfactory to conclude that simply because the world exists the cause is God. Kalam third premise has brought up a lot of debate regarding the possibility of the universe being in existence due to a cause. According to Ockham’s Razor, Kalam third premise violate the principle of parsimony. There is no legal basis for hypothesizing causes beyond necessity. This can be argued since the fundamental cause of the universe would not begin to exist, it could also not require a cause on the basis of these arguments, and therefore it can be simply proposed that the universe is uncaused. This can be applicable if the opinions from infinity exertion, and are employed to a countless number of underlying entities.
Kalam argument also fails to explain the beginning of the earth. If the first Kalam principle is factual, that anything that begins to subsist has a cause, it is right to say that nothing that can start to exist if it is uncaused (“Introduction to the Kalam Cosmological Argument”, 2014). If, then, we admit the prudence of the cause of the world being uncaused, it would follow that, along with the first premise of the innovative argument, that this grounds does not start to subsist. The argument succeeds in demonstrating the three premises, but it is considered worthless. It does not prove that God exist and His moral nature. Kalam argument is inadequate since it does not show any possibility of good God. Consequently, kalam argument fails to demonstrate existence of good God, and does not comprise a collective case for such a God.
Kalam assertion of universe having a cause eliminates the prospect of an uncaused world; it seems practical that it should bring about the probability of theism as an illustrative supposition consequently, though it concurrently raises the likelihood of other descriptive hypotheses. Kalam premises are not convincing because it seems to be applying collective force especially the last kalam premise, hence it is more than logical to make a conclusion that the world has a cause. The argument also brings the probability of a God-like cause, though not as irrational as many people would assume, and not yet wholly convincing. Kalam argument also leaves a lot of gaps since it bring about the probability that the cause must be very powerful. This is because the universe came into physical reality without any material cause. The third premise also relies on the characteristics associated to cause. Kalam argument does not specify any time before the universe. Therefore, it is not easy to explain the existence of the earth based on laws operating on primary conditions, and hence it can only be explained by personal explanation.
In conclusion, Kalam cosmological argument succeeded to explain the three premises, but they failed to provide adequate reasons to support their argument. Kalam first premise was that everything that exists has a source. The second premise was that the earth began to exist. The third kalam premise was that the universe has a source. Kalam cosmological argument violates the principle of parsimony. They fail to explain the relationship of the causal relationship to support their concept. Kalam argument fails to explain the source of the earth, it also fails to provide the cause of the universe or how it came to being. Kalam did not indicate that there was time before the beginning of the earth. The argument also fails to explain how the universe came to being because there is a cause. The third premise ends with unconvincing argument that the universe has an origin. This brings further discussion of the potential qualities that the cause of the universe must possess. It can be argued that the universe is uncaused because the cause cannot be based on kalam argument. Kalam cosmological argument faces a lot of criticism because the arguments are not supported by logic and hence people are left with gaps. The major argument is that if the universe came to being because it was caused, it follows that nothing can exist if it is uncaused.
Djuric, D. (2011). Kalam cosmological argument. Filozofija i DruÅ¡tvo, 22(1), 29-51.
In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith. (n.d.). ReasonableFaith.org. Retrieved September 18, 2014, from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument
Introduction to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. (n.d.). Calum Millers blog. Retrieved September 18, 2014, from http://calumsblog.com/apologetics/arguments-for-gods-existence/kalam/
Nowacki, M. R. (2007). The Kalam cosmological argument for God. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Oppy, G. (1991). Craig, Mackie, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies, 27(02), 189.Pitts, J. B. (2008). Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalam Cosmological Argument for Theism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 675-708.
Rasmussen, M. (2009). On The “Kalam” Cosmological Argument: As proposed by William Lane Craig. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument. (n.d.). JW Wartick Always Have a Reason. Retrieved September 18, 2014, from http://jwwartick.com/category/apologetics/arguments-for-god/cosmological-arguments/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/