Objections to the Kalam argument

What is the Kalam argument?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.


What are some common objections to the Kalam argument?



Are these objections intractable? 

1. Something can come from nothing. 


Dr. Craig writes,

"Sometimes it is said that quantum physics furnishes an exception to premise (1), since on the sub-atomic level events are said to be uncaused. In the same way, certain theories of cosmic origins are interpreted as showing that the whole universe could have sprung into being out of the sub-atomic vacuum or even out of nothingness. Thus the universe is said to be the proverbial “free lunch.” This objection, however, is based on misunderstandings. In the first place, not all scientists agree that sub-atomic events are uncaused. A great many physicists today are quite dissatisfied with this view (the so-called Copenhagen Interpreta- tion) of quantum physics and are exploring deterministic theories like that of David Bohm. Thus, quantum physics is not a proven exception to premise (1).36 Second, even on the traditional, indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum, which constitutes an indeterministiccause of their origination. Third, the same point can be made about theories of the origin of the universe out of a primordial vacuum. Popular magazine articles tout- ing such theories as getting “something from nothing” simply do not understand that the vacuum is not nothing but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Such models do not therefore involve a true origination ex nihilo. [1] 

"Sometimes skeptics will respond to this point [premise 1] by saying that in physics
subatomic particles (so-called “virtual particles”) come into being from
nothing. Or certain theories of the origin of the universe are sometimes
described in popular magazines as getting something from nothing, so that
the universe is the exception to the proverb “There ain’t no free lunch.” 

This skeptical response represents a deliberate abuse of science. The theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy contained in the vacuum. The vacuum in modern physics is not what the layman understands by “vacuum,” namely, nothing. Rather in physics the vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and having a physical structure. To tell laymen that on such theories something comes from nothing is a distortion of those theories.                                                                                                                                        

Properly understood, “nothing” does not mean just empty space. Nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, even space itself. As such, nothingness has literally no properties at all, since there isn’t anything to have any properties! How silly, then, when popularizers say things like “Nothingness is unstable” or “The universe tunneled into being out of nothing”![2]

2. The argument does not entail the cause must be omnipotent, omniscient, and good. 
This is true and that is why Craig doesn't conclude the cause must be omnipotent, omniscient and good. Craig would say this is why further arguments must be given, like the modal ontological argument,  moral argument, or the resurrection of Jesus, to show the cause must be omnipotent, omniscient, and good found in the person of Jesus Christ. Moreover, to argue some minds are dependent on brains to think does not entail all minds are dependent upon brains to think.  

3. If an actual infinite cannot exist then an infinite God cannot.

Dr. Craig writes,

"Rather the key to your question is to understand that the mathematical notion of an actual infinite is a quantitative concept. It concerns a collection of definite and discrete elements that are members of the collection. But when theologians speak of the infinity of God, they are not using the word in a mathematical sense to refer to an aggregate of an infinite number of elements. God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on.

Really "infinity" is just a sort of umbrella term used to cover all of God's superlative attributes. If you abstract away all of those attributes, there really isn't any distinct attribute called "infinity" left over. But none of those attributes need involve an infinite number of things. To take ...[an] example..., omniscience need not entail knowing an infinite number of, say, propositions, much less having an infinite number of thoughts; nor need we think of omnipotence as entailing the ability to do an infinite number of actions.1 When we define omniscience as knowledge of only and all true propositions, we are expressing the extent of God's knowledge, not its mode. The mode of God's knowledge has traditionally been taken to be non-propositional in nature. God has a single undivided intuition of reality, which we finite knowers break up into individual bits of information called propositions. Thus, the number of propositions is at best potentially infinite. Similarly, omnipotence is not defined in terms of quanta of power possessed by God or number of actions God can perform but in terms of His ability to actualize states of affairs. As such it involves no commitment to an actual infinity of things. Therefore, there's no reason to think that God is susceptible to the sort of quantitative analysis imagined by the objection.

Thus, denying that God is actually infinite in the quantitative sense in no way implies that God is finite. This inference does not follow, since the quantitative sense of infinity may be simply inapplicable to God."[3]

4. William Lane Craig is presupposing Christianity.

Of course Dr. Craig presupposes Christianity, just as much as naturalists presuppose naturalism. No one comes to the evidence in a neutral way. Neutrality is a myth, and this is why Craig must be more upfront to this fact. But to criticize Craig for doing the very thing the naturalist is doing is hypocritical. It is a double standard at its best!  




---------------------------------------------
[1] Dr. William Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).p.p.114-115
[2] Dr. William Lane Craig. On Gurad (Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 2010)p.76.
[3] Dr. William Lane Craig. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite#ixzz2oKhGKuOS 

Open Air Atheist

I had a discussion with Open Air Atheist on my Youtube channel. Here is my reply to him.

Please explain logically how objective values are contradictory? You maintain my question “…is like asking [you] to explain why a square circle is logically contradictory.” And then conclude, “It simply is the case that both of these concepts are by definition distinct from one another.”  No one disputes circles and squares are distinct. Your main point is misplaced. If the concept of objective moral values is logically contradictory, as you claim, then a conceptual analysis is due on your part to demonstrate it. But what you level against objective moral values is no simple task. You must show logically there is no possible world in which objective moral values can exist. But as I see it, by the use of possible world semantics, a conceptual analysis of ‘objective moral values’ can be shown as logically coherent.   

First, lets fill in the content of the words “objective moral values.”  By objective moral values, we mean moral values/facts that are universally binding on all people regardless of whether or not people acknowledge them. For example, an act of rape is morally wrong no matter if anyone believes it or not. 

Why is God essentially rational? I think this kind of question is wrongheaded. It is like the question, who made God? The question is fallacious or worse utter nonsense. I kindly take it to be the former than the latter. It is a category mistake on the part of the questioner. What the question is fundamentally asking is why God, a being who is necessarily rational, is not contingently rational. But clearly such a question confuses the categories of being, namely the necessary and contingent.    

Define your use of the term "created"? Do you mean A can cause something to come from nothing? If so, then if something can come from nothing, then we don't need God (whatever that is if indeed an is).

I maintain that God, who is omnipotent (i.e. consistently by nature all powerful), brought the universe, and humans into existence from no thing. It is the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. And my view conforms to biogenesis. Thus something only comes from something. But if you deny the biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo you are left with affirming the absurd conclusion that something comes from nothing by nothing. In the words of William lane Craig, “ such a view is worse than magic.” 

What is God? "God is a person?" Obviously you don't mean that in the usual sense. A person has qualia and physical correlates. If you say no! Then its like saying God is a person which is not a person, or at least not like any person you have experienced which tells me nothing!

What is qualia? Please define qualia. There are plenty of definitions for God. But since you asked me, I would subscribe to the Westminster or London Baptist Confession of Faith’s definition. Now if you wish to tell me the word ‘God’ has no referent; and in effect, all Christians are deluded when they talk about God, such a tactic gets us nowhere in discussion. Moreover, by leveling such a claim, you are taking upon the burden to prove all Christians are deluded when they speak of God and the word itself is meaningless. But there are countless books that would demonstrate the term ‘God’ is meaningful.[1] Moreover, your questions show you are out of step with the Christian renaissance in contemporary analytic philosophy. God is absolute personality, the one in the many, Tri-personal: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is absolute in lordship, authority, presence, knowledge, power and goodness.

Because value judgments are by nature intrinsically subjective. They are personal like, dislikes, expectations (first person experiences) etc.

So is it your subjective value judgment that all value judgments are subjective? This is clearly self-refuting.  I do not deny the subjective component to values but nor do I deny the normative component to values either. And the latter component was the main focus of my discussion with you.

Define your usage of the term "reality" without committing a fallacy of definition.

What is the fallacy of definition? If you are claiming it is a tautology I'd refer you to Quine's paper Two Dogmas of Empiricism.  It is obvious this question is simply a tactic to get away from debating. All one has to do to reveal this fact is ask, "is it true to reality you do not know what ‘reality’ means?" By reality I mean the actual state of affairs.  

 I know what I mean when I use the term "know," but I'm asking you to define your usage of the term. 

Again, another obvious question simply to get away from debating. But I will answer. The term “know” refers to knowledge, which is traditionally understood as justified true belief. But after Alvin Plantinga came along, it might properly be changed to warranted true belief.

 "Why care about truth?" The reason I project value onto truth etc, is because it suits my goals.

Goals to what ends? So truth is merely instrumental? It is instrumental to what? If there is no ultimate end to the means, then one is left in an infinite regress.    

---

[1] JP Moreland and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist? The Debate between Theists and Atheists (Prometheus, Amherst, 1993)p.p.57-59,156-158.

Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman Jr. The Unchanging Faith in a Changing World (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1997)p.p.72-76.

Smith, George H. Atheism: The Case Against God. 2003. PDF. p.22.

Adler, Mortimer J. How to Think about God: A Guide to a 20^th-Century Pagan.(Macmillan, New York, 1980)p.p.78-93.

William Lane Craig. Defining God  

  

Presuppositionalism Refuted, Really?

Sye Ten Bruggencate

Atheist responses to the same questions asked by Sye.

Dan Courtney

James Stillwell (OAA)

A clear critique of these videos can be seen in James Anderson's replies to my questions here:

Atheism Deceptively Fideism

Presuppositions, Epistemology and Atheism