A. The Kalam Version
Summary
TLDRThe script explores the Kalam cosmological argument, focusing on William Lane Craig's development of Aquinas's version. It refutes the possibility of an actual infinite universe by using set theory, suggesting the universe must be finite and have had a beginning. Craig argues for a personal God as the first cause, distinguishing between scientific and personal causal explanations, and emphasizing the necessity of a deliberate act by a personal Creator to account for the universe's existence.
Takeaways
- π The Kalam cosmological argument is rooted in Islamic philosophy and has been developed by modern thinkers like William Lane Craig.
- π It is based on empirical evidence of the cosmos and mathematical reasoning, aiming to conclude that God is the first cause of the universe.
- β The argument denies the possibility of an actual infinite, using set theory to argue that an infinite set cannot logically exist.
- π The concept of potential infinity is distinguished from actual infinity, with the universe being considered potentially infinite due to successive addition.
- π« The paradox of an actual infinite set is highlighted, where parts are equal to the whole, which is deemed illogical.
- π William Lane Craig uses set theory to argue that the universe cannot be actually infinite and must have had a beginning.
- π The argument suggests that since the universe is finite and had a beginning, it must have been caused by something.
- π€ The first cause is not necessarily a personal God initially; it could be any uncaused entity.
- π Craig further argues that the first cause must be a personal Creator to explain the deliberate act of creating the universe.
- π The characteristics of this personal God are eternal, uncaused, incorporeal, timeless, intelligent, and powerful.
- π§ Three reasons are given for the first cause being a personal God: the need for a personal explanation, the lack of alternative suggestions, and the necessity of intellect for agent causation.
Q & A
What is the Kalam cosmological argument?
-The Kalam cosmological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God, which posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and therefore the universe must have had a cause, which is identified as God.
How does William Lane Craig's version of the Kalam argument differ from Aquinas's?
-While both versions deny the possibility of an infinite regress, Craig's version uses mathematical a priori logic to deny it, whereas Aquinas's version is empirically based.
What does the term 'Kalam' mean and what is its relevance to the argument?
-The term 'Kalam' is an Arabic word meaning 'to argue' or 'to discuss'. It is relevant as the argument relies on empirical evidence and mathematical reasoning, reflecting a tradition of discussion and debate.
What is the concept of a 'potential infinite' in the context of the Kalam argument?
-A 'potential infinite' refers to something that is continually growing by having one more item added to it, such as time where each day is added to the previous one. It is not truly infinite because it is still in the process of becoming so.
How does the concept of an 'actual infinite' relate to the Kalam argument?
-The concept of an 'actual infinite' is used in set theory to describe a complete and unchanging infinite set. The Kalam argument suggests that an actual infinite cannot exist because it leads to paradoxes, implying that the universe cannot be infinite.
What paradox does the idea of an infinite library present in the Kalam argument?
-The paradox of an infinite library suggests that if the library is truly infinite, then the number of books with green spines would have to be equal to the number of books with black spines and also equal to the total number of books, which is logically impossible.
Why does the Kalam argument claim that the universe cannot be actually infinite?
-The universe cannot be actually infinite because if it were, all events within it would also be infinite, leading to logical inconsistencies such as the number of wars being equal to the total number of events, which is illogical.
What conclusion does the Kalam argument reach about the beginning of the universe?
-The Kalam argument concludes that since the universe is not actually infinite and is a collection formed by successive addition, it must have had a finite beginning, requiring a cause.
Why does William Lane Craig argue that the first cause must be a personal God?
-Craig argues that the first cause must be a personal God because the universe had a beginning and the cause must be uncaused itself. He also suggests that natural causes are insufficient because they would require the existence of nature before the universe.
What are the characteristics of the personal God proposed by Craig in his Kalam argument?
-Craig proposes that the personal God must be eternal, able to create ex nihilo (out of nothing), incorporeal, timeless, intelligent, and powerful to avoid being part of the process that needs explanation.
What are the three reasons Craig gives for the first cause being a personal God?
-Craig gives three reasons: 1) Scientific explanations are limited and do not provide a personal explanation; 2) No other entity besides God has the necessary qualities to create the universe; 3) Agent causation requires intellect, implying a personal agent capable of deliberate action.
Outlines
π Introduction to the Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Kalam cosmological argument, as developed by William Lane Craig, is rooted in philosophical traditions from Aristotle and evolved through Islamic philosophy. It seeks to prove that God is the first cause of the universe, relying on both empirical evidence (a posteriori) and mathematical reasoning (a priori). The argument is unique in its two-part structure: first, it denies the possibility of infinite regress through mathematical logic rather than empirical observation, and second, it aims to establish that this first cause is a personal God, something Aquinas struggled to demonstrate.
βΎοΈ The Concept of Infinite Regress and Potential Infinite
This paragraph explains the difference between actual and potential infinity, focusing on the argument that an infinite regress cannot exist. A potential infinite grows through successive addition but is not infinite yet, whereas an actual infinite is complete and unchanging. Set theory introduces the paradox of an actual infinite, where parts of an infinite set are equal to the whole, leading philosophers to argue against its logical existence. Lane Craig uses this mathematical reasoning to claim that the universe cannot be infinite, as an infinite universe would never reach the present day, yet we have arrived at today.
πͺ The Necessity of a First Cause
Since the universe cannot be infinite, it must have had a beginning, and anything that begins must have a cause. The idea that nothing can cause itself is emphasized, leading to the conclusion that the universe had a first cause. However, at this stage, Craig's argument does not yet establish this first cause as a personal God; it could be any uncaused cause. The paragraph sets the stage for Craig's further argument that the first cause must be a personal Creator, as the universe could not have been caused by impersonal natural laws, which did not exist before the universe.
π€ The First Cause as a Personal Creator
Craig argues that the first cause must be a personal Creator, not a result of natural forces, because natural laws didnβt exist prior to the universe. He outlines the qualities this personal being must possess, including timelessness, incorporeality, intelligence, and immense powerβqualities that align with the God of classical theism. Craig gives three reasons for this conclusion: personal causation is needed to explain the universe, no other candidate has the necessary attributes, and agent causation requires intellect and will, which only a personal being can have. Thus, Craig concludes that God is the most reasonable explanation.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Cosmological Argument
π‘Kalam
π‘Aristotle
π‘William Lane Craig
π‘Infinite Regress
π‘Actual Infinite
π‘Potential Infinite
π‘First Cause
π‘Personal God
π‘Agent Causation
π‘Classical Theism
Highlights
The cosmological argument is considered with reference to William Lane Craig's version, which is derived from Aristotle and evolved via the Islamic World.
Kalam is an Arabic word for argue or discuss and relies on empirical evidence and mathematical reasoning.
The argument aims to conclude that God is the first cause of the universe.
The Kalam version denies the possibility of infinite regress, using mathematical a priori logic.
The concept of actual infinite is discussed, which refers to a set with an infinite number of members that is complete at all times.
The paradox of an actual infinite set is presented, where parts are equal to the whole, which is considered illogical.
The universe is considered to be potentially infinite, growing by successive addition, and not actually infinite.
The argument posits that the universe cannot be actually infinite because we have reached the present day.
If the universe were actually infinite, all events within it would also be infinite, which is deemed illogical.
The universe is finite and must have had a beginning, as things that begin require a cause.
The argument shows the necessity to deny infinite regress and suggests the universe must have had a first cause.
The first cause is not yet identified as a personal God at this stage of the argument.
William Lane Craig argues that the universe's beginning must be the result of a personal Creator.
The possible causes of the universe's beginning are discussed, including natural and personal causes.
Craig argues that the first cause could not be natural since there were no rules of nature before the universe existed.
The first cause is suggested to be a personal being who deliberately calls the universe into existence.
The personal being must be eternal, incorporeal, timeless, intelligent, and powerful.
Craig gives three reasons why the first cause must be a personal God: the need for a personal explanation, the lack of alternative suggestions, and the necessity of agent causation.
Agent causation implies that the first cause must have intellect and the ability to choose to act.
Transcripts
the educas specification requires us to
consider the cam cosmological argument
with particular reference to William
Lane Craig like aquinas's version the
Kalam version is derived from Aristotle
but has evolved via the Islamic World
William Lane Craig as a modern American
Christian philosopher has developed this
argument
further Kalam is an Arabic word which
means argue or discuss it is a
posteriori in the sense that it relies
upon empirical evidence of the cosmos
and the phenomena within it in order to
come to its
conclusions however it does also use
reasoning derived from the world of
mathematics and as a result elements of
it are a priori in
nature ultimately it aims to come to the
conclusion that God is the first cause
of the universe
in particular there are two parts to the
colam version of the cosmological
argument firstly it denies the
possibility of infinite
regress this it has in common with
aquinas's version of course however the
reason it denies this is mathematical a
priori logic rather than empirically
based secondly this argument tries to
give us a reason to accept that this is
a personal God that this is the first CA
of the
universe this is something that aquinus
had struggled to
do to begin with the cam version looks
at the issue of infinite regress to say
that that something is infinite means
that it is endless or Limitless
something that is growing continually by
having one more item added to it is
known as successive addition or a
potential infinite it is not really
infinite yet
because it is being added
to it is possible to think of time as
being potentially infinite as one more
day is continually added onto the
previous one we exist within a
potentially infinite Universe because as
time passes each day is added on from
the last each hour is added to the last
and so on a potential infinite grows and
develops but isn't actually infinite
this would mean that this Universe isn't
actually
infinite actual infinite is a concept
found in set theory it refers to
collections of things with an infinite
number of members it is not growing
towards Infinity because it is infinite
already a part within an actual infinite
set is equal to the whole set because it
is infinite some philosophers such as
those who argue for the cam argument for
God's existence would say that an in
actual infinite set cannot exist because
you cannot add or subtract from an
actual infinite since it would always
remain the same number infinite an
actual infinite is complete at all times
and many philosophers regard this as
illogical to give an example if you were
to imagine an infinite Library the
number of books within it would be
infinite the books with green spines
would have to be equal to the number of
books with black spines yet the books
with green spines would also be equal to
the complete number of books in the
entire Library this is a paradox it
cannot be true as it is illogical yet it
cannot not be true either if the library
is actually infinite I couldn't take a
book out of this Library if I did there
would still be an infinite number of
books in it equally I cannot return a
book and add to its number as the number
of book books would remain the same as a
result of this Paradox many scholars
argue that there can be no such thing as
an actual infinite this means that the
Universe cannot be actually
infinite Lane Craig uses this idea of
set theory in order to formulate his cam
version the history of the universe was
formed by one event following on after
another event this is successive
addition and is not actually infinite
in an actual infinite Universe we would
never reach today yet we clearly have
reached today so the universe cannot be
infinite this universe cannot be
actually infinite because if it were all
events within it would also be infinite
this would mean that for instance there
would be as many wars as there were
other events put together and this is
illogical all this means that the
universe is a collection that is formed
by successive
addition it therefore must be finite
since it cannot be
infinite since it is finite it must have
had a beginning and things that begin
are caused to begin nothing can cause
itself as this is also illogical nothing
can be the cause of itself since it
would have to exist before it existed in
order to bring itself about the universe
then must have had a first
cause this is the first part of argument
which shows that it is necessary to deny
infinite
regress however at present this first
cause does not have to be a personal god
with any of the theistic characteristics
it could be anything that it is uncaused
itself so Len Craig's cam has to do
more Craig here wants to prove that the
beginning of the universe must be as a
result of a personal Creator he has
already demonstrated that the Universe
must have had a
beginning now if the universe had a
beginning it is necessary to establish
what the possible causes must have been
Craig shows that the two Clear Choices
are either it occurred as a result of
natural in personal causes or that it
was a personal cause that acted
deliberately out of
choice Craig argues that the idea that
the first cause was not personal but was
natural seems to be
logical this is because the beginning of
the universe was the beginning of
everything in this case there couldn't
have been any rules of nature before the
universe existed since nature didn't
exist and there were no laws of it the
laws of nature describe what happens
within nature but they don't exist
independently of nature this means they
cannot have existed before nature did
this leaves us with the option of the
first cause being a personal being who
deliberately calls the universe this
personal being must be very close to the
god of classical
theism firstly God must be Eternal in
order to avoid being part of the chain
of successive addition this God must
have created EXO out of nothing he must
also be incorporeal timeless intelligent
and Powerful in order to avoid being
part of the whole process that we are
trying trying to account for these
qualities are all qualities of the god
of classical
theism Craig gives three reasons why the
first cause must be a personal God
firstly he points out that there are two
kinds of causal explanations there are
the scientific explanations such as the
Big Bang which are fine as far as they
go but they are limited according to
science there can be nothing before this
event but this does not give any kind of
personal
explanation a deliberate act by a
personal Creator is the only explanation
which accounts for
both secondly Craig points out that
there is nothing else that anyone has
been able to suggest that would have the
qualities that are necessary to create
the universe other than God God is the
only being capable of causing the
universe that can also have necessary
existence can exist outside time and
space and be able to deliberately Act to
bring the universe about in the absence
of other possibilities God is a
reasonable
conclusion finally Craig appeals to
agent causation he points out that in
order to be a first cause and bring the
universe about the infinite agent must
have intellect this is because if it
were impersonal it would be unable to
act this means that such an agent must
have the ability to choose to act
according to its own own will in order
to bring the universe into existence
Browse More Related Video
William Paley's Watchmaker Analogy (Extract from "The Teleological Argument")
Ishvara: Blind Faith vs Knowledge - Intro to Advaita Vedanta - Part 5
How the Origin of the Universe Points to the Existence of God
Does God Exist? AI debates Atheist vs. Believer
The Teleological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)
Why This Astrophysicist Left Atheism & Found Jesus
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)