I've been thinking about Craig's defense of the kalam cosmological argument again. In this post, I will sketch two arguments I've formulated and then briefly discuss what I perceive to be the key issue which kalam proponents (hereafter, "kalamists") are likely to dispute.
Argument 1: Actual Infinite is Impossible vs Everything Which Begins to Exist Has a Cause
(1) God's causing the universe to exist is itself either caused or uncaused. [Law of Excluded Middle]
(2) If God's causing the universe to exist is caused, then there is an infinite regress of prior causes of God's actions. [by Strawson's proof of an infinite regress of rational choices]
(3) If there is an infinite regress of prior causes of God's actions, then it is false that an actual infinite is impossible. [From 2 and the definition of an actual infinite]
(4) If God's causing the universe to exist is uncaused, then it is false that everything which begins to exist has a cause.
(5) Therefore, if God causes the universe to exist, then either it is false that an actual infinite is impossible or it is false that everything which begins to exist has a cause. [From 1, 3, 4]
Argument 2: KCA's Agent Causation vs. Caused Beginnings
(1) If the kalam cosmological argument (and its ensuing conceptual analysis) is sound, then everything which begins to exist has a cause. [Premise]
(2) If the kalam cosmological argument (and its ensuing conceptual analysis) is sound, then the cause of the universe is a personal Creator who freely willed the universe to exist. [Premise]
(3) If the cause of the universe is a personal Creator who freely willed the universe to exist, then the personal Creator's act of creation is itself uncaused. [From 2 and the definition of libertarian free will]
(4) If the personal Creator's act of creation is itself uncaused, then it is false that everything which begins to exist has a cause. [From 3]
Therefore:
(5) If the kalam cosmological argument (and its ensuing conceptual analysis) is sound, then it is true that everything which begins to exist has a cause and it is false that everything which begins to exist has a cause. [From 1 and 4]
Therefore:
(6) The kalam cosmological argument (and its ensuing conceptual analysis) is unsound. [From 5]
Discussion: The KCA's Causal Principle
One objection to both arguments is that they equivocate on the scope of the causal principle in the KCA. Premise (1) of the KCA states the causal principle as: "Everything which begins to exist has a cause." While the universe is a "thing," God's act to cause the universe to exist is not a thing. Instead, it is a mental event. Unlike objects coming into existence, mental events don't need causes. Therefore, premise (4) of both arguments is false.
I'm inclined to agree with this objection; there is no inconsistency in Craig's defense of the KCA. At the same time, this suggests a new objection to the KCA: the KCA's causal principle doesn't go far enough. The correct causal principle should be:
(CP) Any thing or mental event which begins to exist has a cause.
Why think CP is true? All changes require causes. Applied to the KCA, if God caused the universe to exist, then a change occurred and that change requires a cause. The critic can even grant the kalamist that mental events have final causes but not efficient causes; CP is neutral with respect to the kind of cause.
This will be very quick, but here's a quick sketch of how the revised objection to the KCA would go. On the assumption that theism is true and God has libertarian free will (LFW), what could be the cause of God's choice to cause the universe to exist? Let God's choice to cause the universe be action A0. Then A0 is fully determined by God's nature (=God's essential attributes) combined with God's reasons R0 at t0. Furthermore, God's sovereignty implies that God is is responsible for R0 at t0. But if God is responsible for R0 at t0, then God rationally chose R0 at t-1. Now, if God rationally chose R0 at t-1, then it follows that God's reasons R-1 at t-1 fully determined God's choice for R0. And so on. Thus, if God chose to create the universe, it would require the completion of an infinite regress of rational choices. But that entails, contrary to Craig / the kalamist, that an actual infinite can exist.
Notes
[1] Argument 2 is inspired by Jonathan M.S. Pearce, Did God Create a Universe from Nothing? Countering William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument (Onus Books, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment