The Kalamity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalamity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument June 24, 2020

Towards the end of my book on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Did God Create the Universe from Nothing?: Countering William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument [UK]), I set out to succinctly list the issues I find in the three-line syllogism:

Let me, for ease of reference, lay out my main points of the book so far in a concise manner:

The Form

  1. the first premise is inductive and thus the argument can only be as strong as its inductive premise

Premise 1

  1. Causality as the universe itself (making the syllogism incoherent or circular)
  2. Everything being the universe itself (making the syllogism incoherent or circular)
  3. No things begin to exist since things are subjective abstracta which are causally inert

Premise 2

  1. the second premise is inductive and thus the argument can only be as strong as its inductive premise
  2. ex nihilo nihilo fit is a bare assertion with no guarantee it would apply to non-spatiotemporal dimensions
  3. Incoherence of even God creating ex nihilo
  4. Conflation of infinite density with ‘nothing’
  5. Universe as brute fact is more probable, given Ockham’s Razor, than God as a brute fact
  6. That the initial singularity on the Standard Big Bang Theory and the BGV are correct in order to imply a definite beginning, and that alternate theories have explanatory power
  7. It is more appropriate to remain agnostic over cosmology in this period of theoretic nascence
  8. Naturalism is a safer bet then theism for explanatory power and scope in line with prior probabilities

The Conclusion

  1. Causality in an a-temporal framework is incoherent
  2. Simultaneous causation is not possible
  3. Intentionality in an a-temporal framework is incoherent
  4. Simultaneous intentionality and action to change a state of affairs is not possible
  5. A perfect good would not intend to create and thereby degrade perfection
  6. Simultaneity is itself a temporal ideal

In setting out the objections in such a manner, it prompts amazement that so many problems can be associated with three such short lines!

I list them continuously here for ease of reference.

The KCA certainly packs a problematic punch for its pint-sized premises.

 


Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook:

A Tippling Philosopher

You can also buy me a cuppa. Or buy some of my awesome ATP merchandise! Please… It justifies me continuing to do this!


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!