The merits of this argument notwithstanding it doesn't get you to Craig's Jesus, even if valid. The best Kalam can do is establish there was a cause to the universe. Muslims use the same argument.

From Alex J O'Connor:

"We should assess the first premise: ‘Everything that begins to exist has a cause.’ This phrase, in all its unassuming simplicity, has the potential to strike its reader as a truism, but it pays to ask yourself an important and relevant question: when have you ever actually known something to begin to exist? Have you ever seen something begin to exist, or even heard of such a thing? You may be inclined to answer that this happens all the time. Just this morning my coffee began to exist — only, it didn’t really begin to exist at all, rather it was the product of a rearrangement of preexisting matter.

Keep in mind that if the kalãm seeks to draw a parallel between things within the universe beginning to exist and the universe itself beginning to exist, they must ‘begin to exist’ in the same fashion. To reiterate, for philosophical relevance the kalãm argument must deal with things that begin to exist from nothing. Since this was obviously not the case with my coffee, it is an inappropriate comparison. What, then, within the universe, has truly begun to exist (from nothing) at a particular point in the past?

Nothing. The answer is nothing. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus nothing in physical existence ever ‘began to exist’ in the sense we are interested in. Not my coffee, nor my computer, nor my father, nor the Burj Khalifa. Even something as seemingly abstract as an idea cannot begin to exist from nothing, since ideas are ultimately nothing more than signals in the brain, and hence physical in nature. It is this realisation that allows us to dispel the first premise as founded on an equivocation fallacy, since the concept of ‘beginning to exist’ is being used, it seems, inconsistently.

Nonetheless, it might be said, this variety of matter and energy constantly rearranging itself must itself, collectively, have an origin. This is of course plausible, but this origin would consist in the very beginning of the universe itself, when all matter simultaneously began to exist. That is to say, no matter has ever begun to exist except when the universe itself came into being. The only thing that ever actually began to exist from nothing, then, is the universe itself, and even this can be confidently asserted only because of our previously granting an entire premise of the kalãm.

Consider the implications of this. If the only thing that ever began to exist (in the relevant sense) is the universe, then the first premise, ‘Everything that begins to exist has a cause’ becomes ‘The universe has a cause’, since the universe is everything that begins to exist, being the only thing that began to exist. It should be immediately apparent that this premise is identical to the conclusion, and thus the kalãm can also be rendered as follows:

Premise one: The universe has a cause;
Premise two: The universe began to exist;
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

As is clear, the second premise is in fact irrelevant, and the argument is now transparently circular. It says nothing whatsoever, since the first premise states the same as the conclusion, and therefore is not a functional syllogism, but a mere claim. It is a claim which, to be at all convincing, will require far more to support it than this unimpressive yet ubiquitous attempt."

As far as I understand it, the objection you are raising is one based off mereological nihilism - the view that there are no composite objects such as coffee, chairs, tables, since all are just rearrangements of simples. A few questions I would ask in return is,
1. Did you begin to exist?
2. If chairs/tables are simply rearrangements of pre-existing matter, did the chair/table always exist, exist only at some time or never exist? If they always existed, a problem of this would be that you would be committed to the view that everything which has been made by the arrangement of the matter of the universe exists now. If you accept that the chairs/tables exist only at some time, then what would be the cause for them only existing now and not 100 years ago? If you opt to say, as I predict you might, that chairs/tables never exist at any point, when you say that 'the chair/table is a rearrangement of pre-existing matter', what does the term 'chair' or 'table' refer to? A cost of this argument would be that it would make nouns such as these meaningless under my view.

A further comment is that a first cause / kalam style argument could be structured to accept the claim of the mereological nihilist. As follows...
1. Any arrangement of mereological simples into a specific structure has a cause.
2. The universe is an arrangement of mereological simples into a specific structure.
3. The universe has a cause.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence)...it is irrational to deny this principle. — Ghost Light

I've heard this claim many times in many contexts, but it doesn't make sense to me. I can understand a claim that it is wrong to deny causation, but not why it would be considered irrational.

The question I have is, (1) Can this causal principle be rationally denied? and (2) What would the benefits/costs be of rejecting this principle? — Ghost Light

Response to Question 1 - I'm not sure of this argument, but I'm going to try it out. Causation is a metaphysical concept. It can be really useful in some situations, especially simple physical ones like the typical cliche example of billiard balls. The idea of causation may be important when I am trying to predict the future behavior of a relatively simple system based on existing conditions. Something like causation may also be important in situations where we need to identify human responsibility for an action. On the other hand, in systems with many components and many inputs and outputs, it is probably not useful to try to identify specific causes for specific states of the system.

Response to Question 2 - In complex systems, assuming that all system behaviors require causes will probably not help understand future system behavior. It will probably lead to unrealistically simplistic approaches.

I have a few further questions from your responses if that is ok?

On the other hand, in systems with many components and many inputs and outputs, it is probably not useful to try to identify specific causes for specific states of the system.

My response to this is I don't see any reason to accept that it is not useful to try and identify the causes of certain states of a large scale system. The metaphysical principle would still hold that if there is a state of this system that exists and has not existed forever (i.e. began to exist) then it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a cause for why the state began to exist as it does. It seems less reasonable to say that the state of the system could become that way with no cause.

In complex systems, assuming that all system behaviors require causes will probably not help understand future system behavior.

My response to this is it is irrelevant to the Kalam causal principle whether it will help predict / understand the future system behaviour because the principle is about things in all three tenses (past, present and future). The principle could be true metaphysically even though it will not help us to understand the future system behaviour. Even here I would reject that it would not help us do this. If we accept that whatever begins to exist has a cause, then it gives us a good reason to understand that things in systems do what they do for a reason and when new things occur and states begin to exist, there will be a cause for them. It will help us to understand the causal nexus of the system better.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts.

I think the answer is that the universe is really self-sufficient. God or the universe is really chicken or egg, though, and doesn't matter. It's all an eternal system that feeds itself, and the Big Bang is only a perceived "beginning" from a limited three dimensional framework for how physical reality works.

We must think outside the confines of linear time -- that's where answers lie.

I have no significant views on this matter which is why I sent Alex O'Conner's angle.

Personally, I don't care if the universe (whatever that actually is) had a cause or not as it doesn't lead me anywhere.

Humans trying to make sense of existence/being is always going to end in loose ends or additional confusions.

2. The universe is an arrangement of mereological simples into a specific structure. — Ghost Light

Is the universe an arrangement of mereological simples? Given our knowledge of the universe is limited and/or speculative I couldn't possible say. I'm not sure we can ascribe causality to anything we understand so poorly. And surely, no matter how many examples of things having causes we find, this doesn't mean everything has a cause.

Thanks for the response. In the mereological version of the Kalam i wasn't trying to state it as true, I was just arguing that someone who uses Alex's line of reasoning of mereological nihilism cannot escape the conclusion that the universe has a cause.

And surely, no matter how many examples of things having causes we find, this doesn't mean everything has a cause.

My response is that the principle is more specific that everything has a cause; it says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Kalam defends could reply by saying that it seems to be a essential feature of things which are caused which is that they begin to exist, and conversely that an essential feature of things which begin to exist is that they are caused to begin to exist.

Interesting response. Thanks for your engagement with my post.

In the mereological version of the Kalam i wasn't trying to state it as true, — Ghost Light

Yep, I understood that.

My response is that the principle is more specific that everything has a cause; it says that whatever begins to exist has a cause — Ghost Light

Yes, and if the premises are correct the argument is valid.

But there's so much missing from this to get us to William Lane Craig.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus nothing in physical existence ever ‘began to exist’ in the sense we are interested in. — Tom Storm

Doesn't big bang cosmology and the ever-expanding universe somewhat undercut this?

Causation is a metaphysical concept. It can be really useful in some situations, especially simple physical ones like the typical cliche example of billiard balls. — T Clark

Aren't the natural sciences largely engaged in trying to identify causal relationships? A trite example suddenly comes to mind, the 1960's television scientist, Julius Sumner Miller. His show was called 'Why is it so?' and typically used simple experiments to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. Pray tell, how was that show metaphysical?

One Platonic theme I refect on, is the fact that numbers and logical laws don't begin to exist, or cease from existing. The law of identity, the furniture of basic arithmetic, and so on, are true in all possible worlds. This does not apply to any kinds of phenomenal entities. Even atoms come into existence, through stellar explosions, for example. Every kind of phenomenal object likewise comes into and goes out of existence and is composed of parts. So I think there's a valid disfinction between the compounded or made or phenomenal, and the uncompounded or unmade (which is the domain of necessary truths). I think that says something important which is nowadays mostly disputed or denied.

Which suggests another way of parsing the cosmological argument in terms of the dependence of the phenomenal on the necessary.

@Wayfarer

One Platonic theme I refect on, is the fact that numbers and logical laws don't begin to exist, or cease from existing. The law of identity, the furniture of basic arithmetic, and so on, are true in all possible worlds.

Nominalists will heavily disagree with the first claim that numbers don't begin to exist and don't cease from existing. Even if Platonism is true, I don't see how the second sentence follow from the first. Nominalists and modal anti-realists would disagree with your second statement as well.

Both Craig and Loke (along with many other supporters of the Kalam Argument) argue that it is irrational to deny this principle. — Ghost Light

I think it is irrational to claim that this principle is true, as it seems to me to be sustained only by habit as Hume would say.

The metaphysical principle would still hold that if there is a state of this system that exists and has not existed forever (i.e. began to exist) then it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a cause for why the state began to exist as it does. — Ghost Light

Item 7 on the T Clark list of philosophical principles - If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. I have no problem with your statement, but, since it has no practical use, it doesn't really mean anything. Who cares if something is caused or not if I can't trace the chain of causation?

It seems less reasonable to say that the state of the system could become that way with no cause. — Ghost Light

I don't see it that way.

The principle could be true metaphysically even though it will not help us to understand the future system behaviour. — Ghost Light

As I said, In my view, a metaphysical principle that has no real world use is meaningless.

Even here I would reject that it would not help us do this. If we accept that whatever begins to exist has a cause, then it gives us a good reason to understand that things in systems do what they do for a reason and when new things occur and states begin to exist, there will be a cause for them. It will help us to understand the causal nexus of the system better. — Ghost Light

What is a "causal nexus?"

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. — Ghost Light

I have not fully convinced myself that the idea of cause is useless yet. I'm trying out these ideas to see what I really believe. So, these are just my thoughts too.

CP = Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence). — Ghost Light

big bang cosmology — Wayfarer

The best science done in the last 100 years indicate that the universe came into existence around 14 billion years ago - that beginning derisively labeled The Big Bang but the theory that goes with that name is now more or less the official stand of cosmologists.

As per the big bang model, we have a singularity (infinite mass & 0 volume) at time zero. There's no before this time as the infinite gravity of the singularity would mean that time would stop flowing which simply means there was no time; time, after all must flow to exist, right? ( :chin: ). Since there was no time before the big bang, causality breaks down since the standard definition of a cause includes that it temporally precede the effect, here the big bang singularity. The big bang singularity couldn't be caused for this reason.

That's my best shot at answering the OP's question.

Aren't the natural sciences largely engaged in trying to identify causal relationships? — Wayfarer

Yep! :up: The rationale being, to my reckoning, knowledge of how stuff works and using that to one's advantage. Scientists, those who have a media presence that is, make a big deal out of how science has spawned a vast array of very useful objects, microscopes to telscopes.

Aren't the natural sciences largely engaged in trying to identify causal relationships? A trite example suddenly comes to mind, the 1960's television scientist, Julius Sumner Miller. His show was called 'Why is it so?' and typically used simple experiments to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. Pray tell, how was that show metaphysical? — Wayfarer

As I noted, the idea of causation may be applicable in some very simple systems. That doesn't necessarily mean it is useful in more complex cases or necessary in any situation. My thoughts here are works in progress.

the furniture of basic arithmetic, — Wayfarer

I like this metaphor.

So I think there's a valid disfinction between the compounded or made or phenomenal, and the uncompounded or unmade (which is the domain of necessary truths). I think that says something important which is nowadays mostly disputed or denied. — Wayfarer

I am focusing my thinking primarily on physical causes, so I haven't really thought through the kinds of issues you are discussing here.

Good perspective. Thanks for the response.

As per the big bang model, we have a singularity (infinite mass & 0 volume) at time zero. There's no before this time as the infinite gravity of the singularity would mean that time would stop flowing which simply means there was no time; time, after all must flow to exist, right? ( :chin: ). Since there was no time before the big bang, causality breaks down since the standard definition of a cause includes that it temporally precede the effect, here the big bang singularity. The big bang singularity couldn't be caused for this reason.

I would disagree here on the science of the big bang. Quantum gravity and emergent space time could easily mean that time can apply in a slightly different sense before the big bang and mean that the big bang initial state had a cause. I don't think any cosmologists today hold to a naive view of the big bang singularity anymore, most opt for emergent spacetime from quantum states at a more fundemantal levels, emergent universe models based on the asymptotic state models or cyclic universe.

It seems you adopt a view of pragmatism where if the principle does not help us in everyday life then it is meaningless? I don't think this answers the question on whether it is rational to accept or deny the metaphysical truth of the principle.

It seems you adopt a view of pragmatism where if the principle does not help us in everyday life then it is meaningless? I don't think this answers the question on whether it is rational to accept or deny the metaphysical truth of the principle. — Ghost Light

I think it's fair to call many of my philosophical ideas pragmatic.

As I've said many times before, people generally choose their metaphysical systems. The standard I apply is usefulness rather than truth. In my, and some other's, views metaphysical principles are not true or false.

I may be perfectly rational to either accept or deny the metaphysical value of the idea of causation.

Thanks for the clarification. Never heard this perspective on causal principles before.

As I've said many times before, people generally choose their metaphysical systems. The standard I apply is usefulness rather than truth. In my, and some other's, views metaphysical principles are not true or false. — T Clark

That's what I've found myself doing more and more as I get older.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus nothing in physical existence ever ‘began to exist’ in the sense we are interested in.
— Tom Storm

Doesn't big bang cosmology and the ever-expanding universe somewhat undercut this? — Wayfarer

Cripes! - my wording was all over the shop. Not sure what I was trying to say. Except that some physicists, Sean Carroll (being one) have stated that there was likely to be something before the big bang which may have had its own physics on a smaller scale that post PB. I don't think we can say there was ever nothing, assuming we can even define what nothing is.

I don't think we can say there was ever nothing, assuming we can even define what nothing is. — Tom Storm

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book, a Universe from Nothing, but David Albert, a philosopher of physics, said Krauss doesn't know what nothing means (apologies for the double entrendre).

Yep, I know the book and I saw Krauss' roadshow on the topic. As I'm sure you'll agree, Krauss is a pop star not a philosopher. But he's way smarter than me in many areas so what can I say?

that even people way smarter than you can be completely mistaken about something like that?

No. But that might be the case.

I would disagree here on the science of the big bang. Quantum gravity and emergent space time could easily mean that time can apply in a slightly different sense before the big bang and mean that the big bang initial state had a cause. I don't think any cosmologists today hold to a naive view of the big bang singularity anymore, most opt for emergent spacetime from quantum states at a more fundemantal levels, emergent universe models based on the asymptotic state models or cyclic universe. — Ghost Light

Beyond my ken I'm afraid. Thanks though! G'day!

The law of identity, the furniture of basic arithmetic, and so on, are true in all possible worlds. — Wayfarer

I suspect you mean in all possible worlds we can imagine. Otherwise, how could one possibly know this? How can one describe a "possible world"?

Response to Question 2 - In complex systems, assuming that all system behaviors require causes will probably not help understand future system behavior. — T Clark

Click on my icon. :cool:

How can one describe a "possible world"? — jgill

There is a realm of possibility. I didn’t invent the saying ‘true in all possible worlds.’