katarn wrote:I introduced this at the old place, but election stuff buried it a bit before I though justice was done in discussion.
The Kalam Argument (Simple Version)
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. If the universe began to exist, it had a cause
3. The universe began to exist (based on most current data and theory)
4. The universe had a cause
4a. That cause must be without properties introduced inside the universe, like time
5. That cause has supreme power as relates to the universe
6. This cause has the properties of a deity
Conclusion: If the universe began to exist, there is some extrauniversal deity that is eternal and omnipotent
I have a couple of problems with this.
The first is that cause and beginning are synonymous, so the first premise could be: Everything that begins to exist has a beginning. Cause typically implies agency, so it is ushering in the idea of will under the radar to make the conclusion seem more plausible.
My second problem is with 4a... 'must be without' should be 'could be without.' There is nothing that demands that whatever caused the universe doesn't operate with the same mechanics that our universe does, it just doesn't
have to. This premise exists to undermine the problem of infinite regress that always haunts first cause arguments, but it does so in a very unsatisfying way.
Premise 5 is simply a statement from the chair, without any rationale as far as I can discern. Why must the cause have any power as relates to the universe other than just being it's progenitor?
Finally, whatever constitutes the 'properties of a deity' is guesswork at best. Premise 6, like 5, comes out of nowhere and is nowise related to the premises before it. 4a, 5, and 6 all claim things that still need to be proven, and only exist to make the desired conclusion sound more plausible.
