• Art48
    477
    The Kalam Cosmological Argument
    Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

    The oak tree in my yard began to exist. What is the cause of its existence?
    The tree grew from an acorn, so we can say the acorn caused the tree to exist.
    But an acorn isn’t a tree; soil and water and sunlight are also needed.
    So, we can say the cause of the tree is the acorn, the soil, the water, and sunlight.

    Already, we see Premise 1 fails in that the tree does not have “a” cause of its existence.
    Rather, it has multiple causes.

    Moreover, we can continue indefinitely.
    Acorn, soil, water, and sunlight floating free in space won’t cause a tree.
    So, we can add Earth’s gravity to the causes.

    To continue, suppose the acorn had originally fallen on a rock but some squirrel happened to knock it off, onto fertile soil. So, we can add the squirrel to the list of causes.

    But if we change Premise 1 to “Whatever begins to exist has one or more causes of its existence,” then the Kalam fails to prove a single cause for the universe. If there are multiple causes, do we want to conclude that Gods may have created the universe?

    In any event, the Kalam as it’s usually presented has a flawed Premise 1. The argument is a “Kalam”ity.
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    The argument is a “Kalam”ity.

    Oh Jeez :rofl:
  • Solaris
    4
    But if we change Premise 1 to “Whatever begins to exist has one or more causes of its existence,” then the Kalam fails

    If we use this alternate premise, we can still get one cause by applying Occam's razor. Simpler explanations are better all else being equal, so there is only one cause unless we have reason to think there's more. With the tree, we have reasons to think there's more. With the universe, we don't.
  • Art48
    477
    Occam's razor is a reasonable response but if we change Premise 1 we are no longer talking about the Kalam as it's presented. Let's call Kalam + Occam's razor "Kalam 2"

    Kalam 2 has some problems (which it shares with the original Kalam) but that would be the subject of another post so as not to divert this post.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    We need to look at the Kalam cosmological argument's single/unitary cause as a sufficient cause (can be single) and not as a necesary cause (can be/are multiple). The acorn seed (say) is provided with water & good soil (necessary causes). You ensure good sunlight and it begins to germinate (sufficient cause). The sunlight completes the causal set of conditions for the acorn to grow - it is one and this in the Kalam cosmological argument is Allah/YHWH.
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    The sunlight completes the causal set of conditions for the acorn to grow - it is one and this in the Kalam cosmological argument is Allah/YHWH.Agent Smith

    Again, brother Agent: :clap:

    The water, nutritionionionians, Sunlight, can be compared with the quantum vacuum. But it takes me or thou to provide them. Likewise it takes gods to provide...
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    brother Agent — Hillary

    :smile:

    You've deliberately lowered your IQ to participate in TPF haven't you? :snicker:
  • Hillary
    1.9k
    You've deliberately lowered your IQ to participate in TPF haven't you? :snicker:Agent Smith

    :lol:

    A necessary but sufficient adjustment! With you I go fully fledged though! :love:
  • Art48
    477
    “We need to look at the Kalam cosmological argument's single/unitary cause as a sufficient cause (can be single) and not as a necesary cause (can be/are multiple).”

    Aren’t necessary conditions a subset of sufficient conditions?
    Isn’t the same true for necessary and sufficient causes?
    Think about it and let me know if you disagree.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment