Kalam Cosmological Argument

wandering2010

I think this is an interesting argument, faulty on many levels...but why can't it be reformulated as the following;

1. Everything with or of a physical nature has a physical cause.
2. The Universe has a physical nature
3. Therefore, the universe has a physical cause.

Doesn't this just swiftly undermine the argument?
Maybe not, I'm not a philosopher, so are there any faults with this?

sephir0th

wandering2010 wrote: »

I think this is an interesting argument, faulty on many levels...but why can't it be reformulated as the following;

1. Everything with or of a physical nature has a physical cause.
2. The Universe has a physical nature
3. Therefore, the universe has a physical cause.

Doesn't this just swiftly undermine the argument?
Maybe not, I'm not a philosopher, so are there any faults with this?

Firstly, 1. is a false premise and unsubstantiated.
Secondly, in your scenario, the 'physical cause' is subject to the same rules as the universe.

wandering2010

sephir0th wrote: »

Firstly, 1. is a false premise and unsubstantiated.
Secondly, in your scenario, the 'physical cause' is subject to the same rules as the universe.

But the claim that;
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Is unsubstantiated as well because scientists now say that things can come from nothing without a cause.

When I said Physical cause in the 2nd premise, it's meant that the cause of our universe is a physical event which would be backed by most scientists.

Well in that case that would lead to an infinite regress.

Amusing the premises that things must have a physical cause, the physical cause of the universe requires a cause itself and that cause needs a cause, as does that one and the next one and so on.

Now this isn't a particularly satisfiying answer, but there's nothing particularly wrong or impossible about an infinite regress.

However the premise is faulty we would have to assume it. And even then we know it's actually wrong.

wandering2010

King Mob wrote: »

Well in that case that would lead to an infinite regress.

Amusing the premises that things must have a physical cause, the physical cause of the universe requires a cause itself and that cause needs a cause, as does that one and the next one and so on.

Now this isn't a particularly satisfiying answer, but there's nothing particularly wrong or impossible about an infinite regress.

However the premise is faulty we would have to assume it. And even then we know it's actually wrong.

But as William Lane Craig says about his own version; you don't need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation etc. or else science would never find answers. Isn't it sufficient to assume that based on current knowledge, in the same way Craig tries to use sleight of hand science to back up his version of the argument??

wandering2010

wandering2010 wrote: »

But as William Lane Craig says about his own version; you don't need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation etc. or else science would never find answers. Isn't it sufficient to assume that based on current knowledge, in the same way Craig tries to use sleight of hand science to back up his version of the argument??

That's true, but it does not make it so you can make any claims about any of the causes at any stage.

And the important bit is that the first premise is untrue.

El_Duderino 09

wandering2010 wrote: »

But the claim that;
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Is unsubstantiated as well because scientists now say that things can come from nothing without a cause.

When I said Physical cause in the 2nd premise, it's meant that the cause of our universe is a physical event which would be backed by most scientists.

Scientists hypothesis that something can come from nothing and are working on the problem. Until they have some evidence it would be crazy to just believe it. I hope its fair to assume we all agree on that.

Now they have no or very little evidence so if they were to start telling us about the nature and character of the cause and about its likes and dislikes and what it eats for breakfast it would be a much weaker claim than the original 'something can come from nothing' claim. Are we still all in agreement?