The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a (pseudo) scientific argument

Over on the forum recently, a user stated that the Kalam argument was philosophical, not scientific. This was my response:

It's false to say that the Kalam isn't a scientific argument, because both its premises are intended to be factual, verifiable statements about the nature of reality.

Three problems:
  1. Not everything that exists has a cause. In fact, the entire field of quantum mechanics defies any causality in the classical, Newtonian sense of "cause-effect" we observe. Quantum mechanics is ruled by probability and mathematical determinism, not Newtonian "cause and effect".
  2. The universe may or may not have had a beginning. The "cosmic singularity" is an artifact of General Relativity, nothing more. When we use quantum mechanics, we do not have a singularity – the universe reaches Planck size, and we simply have no idea what happened before that. Craig's notion that the universe is either infinite or had a beginning is a false dichotomy – in the Planck-scale universe, time may behave completely differently than the straight "arrow" in which we experience it. There isn't a single modern theory of cosmology which presumes the universe requires a beginning.
  3. But the biggest failing of the Kalam is that it presumes what it is trying to prove. One has to presume that causality, which is a phenomenon observed in the universe, exists independently of the universe. But since our concept of causality is derived from the observable universe, the notion of a priori causality is nonsensical – what "laws" might govern and define it if the universe does not exist?
Craig attempted to circumvent this criticism in Q&A #148. He said,
I must confess that I'm baffled why atheists would think that causation presupposes time and space or at least time.
Well duh, Dr. Craig. That's because our very concept of causality is derived from the observable universe. Causality, as we know it, is observable, obeys the laws of the universe, and requires space-time (cause followed by effect). If there were no universe, causality would cease to become a coherent or meaningful concept. Craig continues:
Why can't the cause and effect exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation?
Maybe it can and maybe it can't, but Craig's just making that assumption because his argument fails without it. Simultaneous cause and effect has never been observed, so it has to be discarded as conjectural. He goes on like that with one conjectural statement after the other, suggesting that we ought to prove why his notions of cause and effect are impossible. That's pathetically amateur argumentation – we don't have to prove it's impossible because we aren't the one making the argument.
Imagine if I tried to counter Craig's dismissal of M-theory by saying, "prove it's impossible!" It can't be proved impossible. But until M-theory is confirmed by accurate, falsifiable predictions, neither Craig nor anyone else needs to accept that it is true.

So sure, Craig's theories are possible. So what? Just because something might be one way or another doesn't mean it actually is, and Craig's proved nothing. If Craig wants to assert that causality exists independently of the universe, he's the one making the assertion and the burden of proof is on him. But he never steps up – he flips the script and tells atheists to prove it's false. If I claimed I had superpowers, would you believe me if I said, "Prove I can't fly"? No, of course not! You'd say, "You're the one making the claim, so prove you can!"

The non-believer has a simple, and far more honest answer to how the universe got here: "I don't know. We may know someday, but right now... no one does. What I do know is that your arguments that invoke a god are logically fallacious, and that you've misunderstood and/or misrepresented science to make your claim. Therefor, while your claim may be possible, since you've provided no evidence, we have no reason to accept it as true."


Popular Posts