Does the KALAM Argument PROVE God? Jimmy Akin on CA Focus Podcast

Does the Kalam argument prove God exists? Jimmy Akin joins us and we gave him two simple tasks -- explain the Kalam Cosmological Argument and tell us whether it proves that God exists. Jimmy obliged.
Transcript:
catholic.com/a...

[@urkosh]

Equally enjoyed Jimmy's erudition and fluid discourse, and Cy's professionalism as host/interviewer.

[@ironymatt]

To my mind, a weakness of the Kalam if used for a non-believer who asks for evidence and/or proof of God's existence is that even if one accepts the premises of the argument, one can still reject the conclusion. In other words one could say that the fact of the universe requiring a cause doesn't reveal what the nature of that cause might be. Ie: how does one go from "... the universe began to exist, therefore God..."? I think WLC recognizes this to some degree, as he attempts to qualify the conclusion by expanding upon the implications of what attributes such a cause for the universe would necessarily require, but imho that's where the proof becomes unconvincing for a skeptic, as he could object on the grounds that the proponent is now begging the question.

[@journeyfiveonesix]

It really shouldn't. Imagine you came upon a massive hole in the ground. Your friend asked you what caused it and you reply, "Something capable of creating a massive hole in the ground." This is funny because it's obviously true. Similarly, once we know the universe needs a cause, it's a mere matter of stating the obvious about what that cause would be. Skeptics who aren't willing to concede as much just aren't looking to do philosophy.

[@ironymatt]

@@journeyfiveonesix Oh, I personally agree, the skeptic is merely kicking the can further down the road. Nevertheless, for the argument to be truly airtight it needs to be effective against said skeptic, and this is where they always say "well, all that shows is that no one knows how the universe was caused." Going by the letter of the law, they aren't technically wrong. In it's classical formulation, the conclusion doesn't follow directly from the premises. It's for this that I much prefer the Thomistic approach (as best as I understand it - I'm no philosopher!). His five ways properly understood are far more thorough and don't rely on the presumption the Kalam does.

[@journeyfiveonesix]

@@ironymatt Ah yes, I understand. I also like how St. Thomas unfolds his philosophy rather than defending premises. I think that the argument from motion is more clearly a path to God as he builds off of the fact of change, whereas the Kalam is often presented with 3 points and a concise end, which is misleading to skeptics, I agree.

[@TremendousSax]

@@journeyfiveonesix You can't be so glib about trying to reason backwards from effect to cause(s). Assuming the universe has a cause, the power to create a single universe isn't the same as the ability to create any of an infinite number of universes. We can't get to omnipotence from the minimum power necessary to kick a casual change in motion. It also doesn't tell you that there's only a single cause. It further doesn't tell you that this cause or set of causes is worthy of worship because of omnibenevolence or supposed moral perfection. Lastly, a cause(s) of the universe also doesn't necessarily imply omniscience. It's entirely plausible that the cause could not predict the complex emergent phenomena that we see. In short, having a cause(s) of the universe doesn't get you anywhere near the specific theological claim of your preferred flavor of Christianity

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

Heidegger had a wonderful criticism of epistemology, which is the basis of his whole philosophy. Every scientific endeavor presupposes being without even trying to explain it. Being is a given, an ontological dogma so to speak. So before we even get to the scientific perspective, we need to work at this level of the basis of our thinking. I think this should be especially profitable to us Catholics in that the chief claim about God is that He is the ground of being. He IS being. We have enough philosophical development in the 20th century to explore more solid and fundamental ways to prove God, beyond the ever changing scientific consensus. But philosophy seems to have been abandoned after Heidegger. It became fragmented, political, uninterested in the big questions. Primacy was given to science. And we can go beyond that. We can think outside the scientificist box.

[@djaltm8]

That was really interesting thanks for sharing. You're right infinity boggles the mind!!😀

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Infinity and absolute nothing. You'll go insane trying lol

[@bestclipsnhighlights1023]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan 🏀 LL be

[@journeyfiveonesix]

6:29: Cy's face Also, if you want some good books that contain this argument you can check out some works by William Lane Craig, or Trent Horn's Answering Atheism.

[@ironymatt]

... and again at 6:45 - 6:55 😄

[@hollypepen4012]

Thanks Jimmy for the philosophy fix :)

[@adkaquatics212]

Me trying to think about this: 🤔🤨😟😣😖🤯

[@johnphelan8999]

It's a clever argument but one of it's flaws is in the first premise - as we've never actually witnessed anything 'begin to exist' in the way the argument uses the term.

[@samernattifi3883]

If things do exist from nothing, why don’t we see this happening all the time if not at all

[@actsapologist1991]

For the life of me, I cannot bring myself to disagree with Bonaventure. Every time I hear Aquinas' complaint about the impossibility of traversing the infinite, it donks off my thick skull and I go back to Bonaventure's side.

[@journeyfiveonesix]

See, I can see his point when I keep in mind that if the past is infinite, then the universe never began to exist. So there would always be an infinite amount of time already past no matter how far pack one goes. But is this just begging the question, and how can one even conceive of a universe that _never_ began to exist? I'm confused lol

[@ironymatt]

@@journeyfiveonesix Agreed, just because we mere humans can comprehend the concept of infinity doesn't mean we can actually comprehend infinity itself!

[@jeremysmith7176]

The great thing for theists is that even if Aquinas' arguments against Bonaventure and their could be an infinite past we need only to fall back from the Kalam argument to Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God. From the observation of change, causation, and potential existence in the present. His arguments do not depend on the world having a finite past.

[@valerielaxton7154]

What about Saint anslem and godels arguement

[@ericleming1734]

I liked how Jimmy Akin answers the Kalam argument. Also I agree that God is not the beginning.

[@johnelliott5859]

If you agree with the Kalam argument, it can at most point to a deist god. The Kalam cannot prove the god of the bible exists. In the end it is still a god of the gaps argument, since we don't know how the universe began. WLC misuses and extends the argument with his conception of god to try to prove the god of the bible. He fails.

[@jasonroelle5261]

Nope even if you replace the universe with cosmos, and premise 1, and 2 are true, that does not get you to a God exist. At best the argument gets you to this/the universe had a cause. The argument does say anything about the cause. You are equivocating this/the universe, and the cosmos.

[@journeyfiveonesix]

Hey Jason, imagine you saw a giant crater in the earth on a walk one day and you ask your friend what caused it. He replies that the cause is something 1) capable of creating a giant crater and 2) something that's not the crater itself. It's almost ridiculous how obvious that answer is. The same can be said about the cause of the cosmos/universe. It's something capable of creating the cosmos, and something not within the cosmos. So we have an ultra powerful, immaterial, timeless entity. But said entity doesn't create a beginning-less universe even though _it_ is beginning-less. But this would mean it operates differently than impersonal causes which act so long as they are able to act; so it is personal. The above (in much more detail) is part and parcel of the Kalam argument as presented in literature in which it is expounded and defended. It is not a separate argument, as the theist specifically is claiming to present an argument which proves the existence of _God._ Re: the cosmos/universe distinction, they can be used interchangeably so long as they refer to the collection of all space, matter, and time. The argument tries to prove that all space, matter, and time, has a beginning of its existence. Check it out, there's tons of great resources to get you started. Assuming that you're really interested in patient study of philosophy, rather than a debate of opinions.

[@phatcrayonz]

I believe that Jesus made the world.