The Cosmological Argument

William Lane Craig makes an elaborate defense of the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of and the creation of the universe. This is my response. First, let me just post the essence of Craig’s argument (read entire essay here):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
......2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
...........2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
...........2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
...........2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
......2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
...........2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
...........2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
...........2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Now, before getting to my own refutation of this argument, let me point out that Craig asserts (through the reasoning in 2.11 to 2.23) that “the universe “began to exist.” I would argue that this would be true if it were expanded to “the universe began to exist in its current state.” But this does not answer the question of whether the current state is the essence of how the universe must exist. Kalam doesn’t say.

Now to my argument.

A “transcendent cause” of the universe transcends the universe (as we can know it in its present state) itself. Ego, from the point of view of the universe, the transcendent cause must necessarily exist. This may seem to confirm Craig’s argument. However:

Can the transcendent cause also transcend its own existence? That is to say, is there no context in which the transcendent cause can be said to exist?

If the answer is “no,” then what can it mean to “exist” outside of any context whatsoever? Since this would have no meaning, it would seem to imply that the transcendent cause does not exist.

If the answer is “yes,” then the transcendent cause’s existence within that context can likewise (using an argument similar to Craig’s above) be shown to be contingent, and therefore to require a cause which transcends it.

Therefore, there either is no transcendent cause of the universe, or there is a transcendent cause which requires a cause of its own. This argument regresses to infinity.

What if the transcendent cause never began to exist, but always was, always is and always will be? Then it does not regress infinitely.

But that's the point I was trying to make. If the transcendent cause exists, then it must exist within some sort of context. While that context may not be this universe, still within whatever that context is, it could not be "necessarily existing." Necessary existence is a consquence, as shown by the cosmological argument, of a transcendant cause.

So my argument says:

1. Nothing can exist without context
2. If a transcendent cause exists, it must exist within some context (existence without context of any kind is impossible if existence is to have any meaning whatever)
3. Necessary existence (within any context) depends upon a cause which transcends that context
4. Therefore, a transcendent cause (which exists) must have a transcendent cause

Why can nothing exist without context? I believe that to possibly be an assumed limitation.

Well, for that we would have to engage in a study of ontology, for which I don't have the time at the moment. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy briefly says:
I would ask you to pay special attention to O3, which implies that anything which exists must, at a bare minimum, have attributes. Attributes differentiate. Differentiation is context.

Else, I suspect, you would have to say that God may exist without context, which would mean a God with no attributes whatever, which I would find pretty much impossible to grok.

Edited to add:

And as Kant and Hume have discussed, existence is not an attribute that adds anything whatever to a thing. I can understand what a perfect sphere is, for example, though none exists. If one did exist, however, it would add nothing to my understanding of what a perfect sphere is. Therefore, God must have some other attribute than mere existence, or He would have none at all.

Superb thread evangelicalhumanist (may I call you EH?)

As I ponder all the goodies presented here before commenting foolishly let me ask: "Can Nothingness exist without context"?

I would love to jump into this conversation. My son just yesterday brought up a conversation with me on this subject, right before E.H. posted it. I know just coincidence : )

I feel there is something I can learn or become aware of, but my language barrier is hindering me from fully understanding the argument.

So here my questions:

Is William Lane Craig saying that someone or something caused this universe to come into existence (creation)?

And is your argument (E.H.) that it came into existence uncaused?

I should not think so, but it becomes somewhat of a contrived argument. The problem, I think, is in the noun forumulation: "nothingness" being the state of no thing existing. If nothing exists, then nothingness cannot be a something (a noun).

In Buddhist dharma, the teachings are the all things are interrelated and there is not likely to be anything that completely stands alone.

"Nothingness", as it relates to Buddhist dharma, doesn't mean nihilism, but that a "thing" is constantly in the process of changing. Plus it is not standing in isolation and, therefore, should not be viewed as a completely separate entity.

Obviously, this does not refute what you have posted but actually fits in nicely with your position, if I'm understanding you correctly.