The Kalam Argument
The Kalam argument for the existence of God is based on a short argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Let me focus on the second premise...
William Lane Craig is the leading defender of this argument. Let's take a look.
There is a distinction to be made between absolute and relative theories of time. Absolute theories entail that time exists independently of objects and the relationship between them in the physical universe. Relational theories entail that space/time is nothing but objects and the relationship between them in the physical universe. Einstein's Theories of Relativity support relational theories of time. As such, time is relative to the observer in a four dimensional framework (in addition to length, width, and height). Each physical object in space/time is an event in space/time. If no mass/energy existed, then time would not exist either. Therefore, time began with the Big Bang inside the physical universe. Craig must dispute this as a defender of absolute time, even though no scientist agrees with Craig on this point.
Craig begins his philosophical arguments by making the distinction between an actual infinite collection of things (which is numerically infinite) and a potential infinite collection of things (which is merely “indefinite,” having the potential of being numerically infinite). Using several thought experiments Craig argues that an actual infinite collection of things is impossible. In one of them Craig tries to show that an actual infinite cannot be formed by adding one number after another successively. This is impossible, he says. If someone began the task of counting in the distant past she could never count to infinity no matter how high she counted, for there would always be one number higher to count. But his argument says nothing against an immortal being counting to infinity if she has always been counting, since at no time in the past does she ever begin counting. It only shows, at best, that if someone began counting she couldn’t count to infinity, which is an uninteresting argument and off the mark if he intends to show by it that the physical universe couldn’t have always existed.
Craig’s favorite thought experiment is about Hilbert’s Hotel. This hypothetical hotel has an infinite number of guests each in their own separate rooms. Absurdities set in at this point, Craig argues. For even though we already have an infinite number of guests in the hotel, we can always add more guests by simply moving them all down one room and then adding the newest guest to room number one. By doing this over and over we could add an infinite number of new guests without the actual number of guests increasing. Furthermore, an infinite number of guests could check out of the odd numbered rooms leaving an infinite number of guests in the even numbered rooms. Craig claims this is absurd. Therefore he concludes that an actual infinite collection of things is impossible, and by analogy, there cannot be an actual infinite series of events in time either.
Contrary to Craig, an actual infinite could exist if his God had decided to eternally create the universe, for then such an eternal universe would have an actual infinite series of events. Craig doesn’t believe this, but I don’t see how he can reasonably claim that his God could not have done so, just as Aquinas saw no problem with an eternal universe and supposed it for the sake of his arguments. Unless Craig can show that this is not possible for his God to have done, there can indeed be an actual infinite series (or collection) of events in time, and his argument fails.
Craig argues that the universe had a beginning since it leads to absurdities to suppose that it didn’t. For example, if in the distant past an immortal being finished counting an infinite number of events down from negative infinity to zero (…-3, -2, -1, 0), then we could never travel back in time to see her counting, for no matter how far back we go she would already be finished. That’s absurd, Craig claims. But Craig is begging the question here. If she finished her task then we should be able to travel back in the distant past to see her still counting events, based upon his argument that an actual infinite cannot be formed by adding one number after another successively, as we just explained. According to Craig’s own logic there could only be a finite number of events between when she finished her task and today. Furthermore, Craig cannot have it both ways. He cannot have an immortal being who has always been counting events and one who never counts any at all! Either we can go back in time to find her counting or she never was counting at all!
Craig’s basic problem is that he conflates counting an infinite number of events with counting all of them. An immortal being could finish her task (…-3, -2, -1, 0) and yet not count all events (1, 2, 3…). Besides this, what reason does Craig have for supposing that the immortal being necessarily finished counting all of the events before today? It could be that the immortal being is nowhere close to finishing her count. There’s nothing absurd about this. He cannot merely say she could be finished counting, he needs to say that she must be finished counting, and that’s something he cannot say.
--------------------
I'm sorry to have to ask, but if you liked what I wrote please consider a donation.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Let me focus on the second premise...
William Lane Craig is the leading defender of this argument. Let's take a look.
There is a distinction to be made between absolute and relative theories of time. Absolute theories entail that time exists independently of objects and the relationship between them in the physical universe. Relational theories entail that space/time is nothing but objects and the relationship between them in the physical universe. Einstein's Theories of Relativity support relational theories of time. As such, time is relative to the observer in a four dimensional framework (in addition to length, width, and height). Each physical object in space/time is an event in space/time. If no mass/energy existed, then time would not exist either. Therefore, time began with the Big Bang inside the physical universe. Craig must dispute this as a defender of absolute time, even though no scientist agrees with Craig on this point.
Craig begins his philosophical arguments by making the distinction between an actual infinite collection of things (which is numerically infinite) and a potential infinite collection of things (which is merely “indefinite,” having the potential of being numerically infinite). Using several thought experiments Craig argues that an actual infinite collection of things is impossible. In one of them Craig tries to show that an actual infinite cannot be formed by adding one number after another successively. This is impossible, he says. If someone began the task of counting in the distant past she could never count to infinity no matter how high she counted, for there would always be one number higher to count. But his argument says nothing against an immortal being counting to infinity if she has always been counting, since at no time in the past does she ever begin counting. It only shows, at best, that if someone began counting she couldn’t count to infinity, which is an uninteresting argument and off the mark if he intends to show by it that the physical universe couldn’t have always existed.
Craig’s favorite thought experiment is about Hilbert’s Hotel. This hypothetical hotel has an infinite number of guests each in their own separate rooms. Absurdities set in at this point, Craig argues. For even though we already have an infinite number of guests in the hotel, we can always add more guests by simply moving them all down one room and then adding the newest guest to room number one. By doing this over and over we could add an infinite number of new guests without the actual number of guests increasing. Furthermore, an infinite number of guests could check out of the odd numbered rooms leaving an infinite number of guests in the even numbered rooms. Craig claims this is absurd. Therefore he concludes that an actual infinite collection of things is impossible, and by analogy, there cannot be an actual infinite series of events in time either.
Contrary to Craig, an actual infinite could exist if his God had decided to eternally create the universe, for then such an eternal universe would have an actual infinite series of events. Craig doesn’t believe this, but I don’t see how he can reasonably claim that his God could not have done so, just as Aquinas saw no problem with an eternal universe and supposed it for the sake of his arguments. Unless Craig can show that this is not possible for his God to have done, there can indeed be an actual infinite series (or collection) of events in time, and his argument fails.
Craig argues that the universe had a beginning since it leads to absurdities to suppose that it didn’t. For example, if in the distant past an immortal being finished counting an infinite number of events down from negative infinity to zero (…-3, -2, -1, 0), then we could never travel back in time to see her counting, for no matter how far back we go she would already be finished. That’s absurd, Craig claims. But Craig is begging the question here. If she finished her task then we should be able to travel back in the distant past to see her still counting events, based upon his argument that an actual infinite cannot be formed by adding one number after another successively, as we just explained. According to Craig’s own logic there could only be a finite number of events between when she finished her task and today. Furthermore, Craig cannot have it both ways. He cannot have an immortal being who has always been counting events and one who never counts any at all! Either we can go back in time to find her counting or she never was counting at all!
Craig’s basic problem is that he conflates counting an infinite number of events with counting all of them. An immortal being could finish her task (…-3, -2, -1, 0) and yet not count all events (1, 2, 3…). Besides this, what reason does Craig have for supposing that the immortal being necessarily finished counting all of the events before today? It could be that the immortal being is nowhere close to finishing her count. There’s nothing absurd about this. He cannot merely say she could be finished counting, he needs to say that she must be finished counting, and that’s something he cannot say.
--------------------
I'm sorry to have to ask, but if you liked what I wrote please consider a donation.