Modern debate Kalam cosmological argument

1 modern debate

1.1 premise one: whatever begins exist has cause.

1.1.1 philosophical objections
1.1.2 quantum physics


1.2 premise two: universe began exist.

1.2.1 cosmology , physics
1.2.2 actual infinities


1.3 conclusion: universe has cause.
1.4 theories of time

modern debate

according atheist philosopher quentin smith, count of articles in philosophy journals shows more articles have been published craig’s defense of kalam argument have been published other philosopher’s contemporary formulation of argument god’s existence.

the kalam cosmological argument has received criticism philosophers such j. l. mackie, graham oppy, michael martin, quentin smith, physicists paul davies, lawrence krauss , victor stenger, , authors such dan barker.

modern discourse encompasses fields of both philosophy , science (quantum physics , cosmology), bruce reichenbach summarises as:

... whether there needs cause of first natural existent, whether universe can finite , yet not have beginning, , nature of infinities , connection reality .

premise one: whatever begins exist has cause.

craig defends first premise follows:

according reichenbach, causal principle has been subject of extended criticism , can divided philosophical , scientific criticisms.

philosophical objections

graham oppy, j. l. mackie , wes morriston have objected intuitiveness of first premise. oppy states:

mackie, [adolf] grunbaum, [quentin] smith , —among many others— have taken issue first premise: why should supposed absolutely begins exist has cause beginning exist?

mackie affirms there no reason assume priori uncaused beginning of things impossible. moreover, causal principle cannot extrapolated universe inductive experience. appeals david hume s thesis (an enquiry concerning human understanding) effects without causes can conceived in mind, , conceivable in mind possible in real world. argument has been criticised bruce reichenbach , g.e.m. anscombe, point out phenomenological , logical problems in inferring factual possibility conceivability. craig notes:

hume himself believed in causal principle. presupposes throughout enquiry events have causes, , in 1754 wrote john stewart, allow me tell never asserted absurd proposition might arise without cause .

morriston asserts causal laws physical processes have intuitive knowledge in context of events within time , space, such intuitions not hold true beginning of time itself. states:

have no experience of origin of worlds tell worlds don t come existence that. don t have experience of coming being of remotely analogous “initial singularity” figures in big bang theory of origin of universe.

in reply, craig has maintained causal laws unrestricted metaphysical truths not contingent upon properties, causal powers, , dispositions of natural kinds of substances happen exist , remarking that:

history of twentieth century astrophysical cosmology belies morriston s claim people have no strong intuitions need of causal explanation of origin of time , universe.

in support of first premise, andrew loke reasons if (e.g. universe=physical reality whole) begins exist without antecedent necessary condition whatsoever, many other kinds of things can begin exist within our universe begin exist within our universe without antecedent condition, because (i) there not antecedent condition make case universes (rather these other kinds of things) begins exist, , (ii) properties of universes , properties of other kinds of things differentiate between them had them when had begun exist. in case our universe have been different.

quantum physics

a common objection premise 1 appeals phenomenon of quantum indeterminacy, where, @ subatomic level, causal principle appears break down. craig replies phenomenon of indeterminism specific copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, pointing out 1 of number of different interpretations, of states deterministic (mentioning david bohm) , none of yet known true. concludes subatomic physics not proven exception first premise.

philosopher quentin smith has cited example of virtual particles, appear , disappear observation, apparently @ random, assert tenability of uncaused natural phenomena. in book universe nothing: why there rather nothing, cosmologist lawrence krauss has proposed how quantum mechanics can explain how space-time , matter can emerge nothing (referring quantum vacuum). philosopher michael martin has referred quantum vacuum fluctuation models support idea of universe uncaused beginnings. writes:

if universe has beginning in time, in light of proposed cosmological theories beginning may uncaused. despite craig s claim theories postulating universe pop existence uncaused incapable of sincere affirmation, such similar theories in fact being taken scientists.

philosopher of science david albert has criticised use of term nothing in describing quantum vacuum. in review of krauss s book, states:

relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent there not being physical stuff @ isn’t or particular arrangement of fields — (obviously, , ineluctably, , on contrary) simple absence of fields.

likewise, craig argued quantum vacuum, in containing quantifiable, measurable energy, cannot described nothing , therefore, phenomena originating quantum vacuum cannot described uncaused . on topic of virtual particles, writes:

virtual particles not literally come existence spontaneously out of nothing. rather energy locked in vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such way convert evanescent particles return vacuum.

premise two: universe began exist.

craig justifies premise 2 using both physical arguments evidence cosmology , physics, , metaphysical arguments impossibility of actual infinities in reality.

cosmology , physics

for physical evidence, craig appeals to:

professor alexander vilenkin, 1 of 3 authors of borde-guth-vilenkin theorem, writes:

remarkable thing theorem sweeping generality. made no assumptions material content of universe. did not assume gravity described einstein’s equations. so, if einstein’s gravity requires modification, our conclusion still hold. assumption made expansion rate of universe never gets below nonzero value, no matter how small.

victor j. stenger has referred aguirre-gratton model eternal inflation exemplar others disagree borde-guth-vilenkin theorem. in private correspondence stenger, vilenkin remarked how aguirre-gratton model attempts evade beginning reversing arrow of time @ t = 0, that: makes moment t = 0 rather special. no less special true beginning of universe.

at state of universe conference @ cambridge university in january 2012, vilenkin discussed problems various theories claim avoid need cosmological beginning, alleging untenability of eternal inflation, cyclic , cosmic egg models, concluding: evidence have says universe had beginning. however, in interview in 2014 vilenkin said:

in quantum physics, events not have cause, probability. such, there probability universe pop out of nothing. can find relative probability size or size , have various properties, there not particular cause of it, probabilities. nothing in quotations because nothing referring here absence of matter, space , time. close nothing can get, still required here laws of physics. laws of physics should still there, , not nothing.

when asked if work proves existence of god or @ least of divine moment of creation, vilenkin responded don’t think proves 1 way or another.

in 2015, cosmologists ahmed farag ali , saurya das published paper outlining model applies quantum correction terms complement einstein s theory of general relativity , suggests universe may have existed forever.

actual infinities

on impossibility of actual infinities, craig asserts:

michael martin disagrees these assertions craig, saying:

craig s priori arguments unsound or show @ actual infinities have odd properties. latter fact known, however, , shows nothing whether logically impossible have actual infinities in real world.

andrew loke, however, thinks if actual infinite possible, there argument show impossible traverse it. proposes following argument:

but loke, in fact, proposes argument against metaphysical possibility of concrete actual infinite using case of ‘christmas present generator’ , person generator. .

conclusion: universe has cause.

in critique of craig s book kalam cosmological argument, published in 1979, michael martin states:

should obvious craig s conclusion single personal agent created universe non sequitur. @ most, kalam argument shows personal agent or agents created universe. craig cannot validly conclude single agent creator. on contrary, shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in creation.

martin claims craig has not justified claim of creation ex nihilo , pointing out universe may have been created pre-existing material in timeless or eternal state. moreover, craig takes argument far beyond premises allow in deducing creating agent greater universe. this, cites example of parent creating child becomes greater or she.

in subsequent blackwell companion natural theology, published in 2009, craig discusses properties of cause of universe, explaining how follow entailment initial syllogism of kalam cosmological argument:

craig concludes cause of existence of universe uncaused, personal creator ... sans universe beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless , enormously powerful ; remarking upon theological implications of union of properties.

theories of time

craig maintains kalam cosmological argument involves commitment a-theory of time, known dippodippy theory or presentism, opposed alternative, b-theory of time, known tenseless theory of time or eternalism. latter allow universe exist tenselessly four-dimensional space-time block, under circumstances universe not begin exist :

start finish, kalam cosmological argument predicated upon a-theory of time. on b-theory of time, universe not in fact come being or become actual @ big bang; exists tenselessly four-dimensional space-time block finitely extended in earlier direction. if time tenseless, universe never comes being, and, therefore, quest cause of coming being misconceived.

craig has defended a-theory against objections j. m. e. mctaggart , hybrid a-b theorists. philosopher yuri balashov has criticised craig s attempt reconcile a-theory special relativity relying on ‘neo‐lorentzian interpretation’ of special relativity. balashov claims:

despite fact presentism has firm backing of common sense , eternalism revolts against it, eternalism regarded default view in contemporary debates, , presentism highly problematic view.

in response balashov, craig has defended lorentzian interpretation against both relativity , spacetime interpretations of special relativity. criticises balashov adopting verificationist methodology fails address metaphysical , theological foundations of a-theory.

it has been argued defense of kalam cosmological argument not have involve such commitment a-theory.