William Lane Craig and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[MorpheusSandman]

They also have the fossil record on their side.

I think that's been overstated. The fossil record is always incomplete, and not all evolutionary changes can be detected through the fossil record. That's why there's been so much interest in observing evolution in controlled environments that isn't limited by the obscuration of distant time.

The problem is that cosmology is what Krauss studies.

And I don't see that Krauss was outmatched in this area (fwiw, Krauss is a theoretical physicist, which means he studies more than just cosmology). The fact that Craig presents answers to problems we currently don't have answers for is not him "beating" Krauss at his own game. Krauss is dead on when he says "we don't know." It's that simple. Craig would like to convince you that he knows something Krauss and other theoretical physicists don't on the subject of physics in cosmology. He doesn't. That's why Krauss and others like him are unimpressed.

Krauss claims that he uses infinity in his profession but what he is really using is the limit process in the calculus. He never actually counts an infinite number of things, nor is any proof that the algorithms he uses are correct based on an actual infinite computation.

It's true we may be talking about the limits of our mathematical models when we talk about infinity, but we currently have no other word for it. Read my replies to stuntpickle about infinity: "counting an infinite number of things" presumes that infinity obeys the same laws as finite things. It's possible (likely) that there can't be "an infinite number of (discrete) things," because suggesting discreteness already presumes finiteness. Krauss is right in that all physicists and mathematicians "use" infinity and it does seem to function and have its uses. As for what that means regarding real-world referents is debatable, but Craig simply saying that it can't exist isn't convincing, nor is his trying to demonstrate the absurdity of infinity using finite calculations.

The Kalam argument provided the reasoning that if something begins to exist it has a cause.

Yes, but see the problems I outlined above.

And not only did it have a beginning, the standard model of cosmology insisted it came out of nothing and so did space and time. So, whatever caused it is not in space or time. Apply the Kalam argument and a core component of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic theory receives a major confirmation.

See above again on the problem of "nothing". All we can really say is that whatever created the universe wasn't limited by spacetime, and must have brought both into existence. But we still don't know what that thing is. It doesn't really supply support for the Judeo-Christo-Islamic theory of "something from nothing," because we don't know if it was nothing. It's still possible (maybe even likely) that it was quantum gravity. Again, let's wait for some tests to provide some kind of solid conclusion before we accept another theory that gives us no predictive power.

Ironically, Krauss is an atheistic cosmologist whose very work is validating a religious position he does not support.

To validate the position there would first have to be a way to falsify it, and there's not.

Let me add something I haven't brought up yet: In mathematical logic there's something called the Conjunction Fallacy. Simply stated, if one probably is contained inside another one, the one that's contained will always be more likely to occur. So, if you look at two dice-roll sequences:

1. 531542
2. 3425651

The first sequence will ALWAYS be more likely because it is contained inside the second probability (the 531542 sequence occurs in the second, out of order, with a 6 added in an extra roll).

What this has to do with the Kalam is this: Let's accept that the universe must have a cause that precedes spacetime. Let's suppose that this cause could be narrowed down to God or quantum energy. All things being equal, we should always state the latter is more likely. Why? Because we know quantum energy exists, whether God exists or not. So even if God does exist, quantum energy fits inside that hypothesis the same way the 1st roll in the dice example fits inside the 2nd.

This is often sometimes informally expressed as "Occam's Razor", or "the simplest answer is usually the best." Every extra element we add to a theory adds something that can go wrong with it. God "seems" like a simple answer until one gets past the linguistic simplicity to imagining rendering ourselves in, say, AI terminology, but adding abilities that even we don't possess. In comparison, utilizing things we already know exist (like quantum energy) is to be much preferred, if only for the reason we don't have to worry about the probability of its existing at all.

[Darcy88]

No one has all the answers but Craig has a lot of them. I disagree with him on many things while agreeing with him on many. His precocious debating skills and charisma cannot be denied. I still side with Hawking though.

[mal4mac]

Well, because everything we can think of that comes into existence has a cause for that existence. Can you think of any exceptions?

The English thought all swans were white until they went to Australia.

Just because I can't think of anything that doesn't have a cause that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing. That thing might be the universe. Why not?

[mal4mac]

Haha because everything happen for a reason...

Really? How do you know?

[YesNo]

I think that's been overstated. The fossil record is always incomplete, and not all evolutionary changes can be detected through the fossil record. That's why there's been so much interest in observing evolution in controlled environments that isn't limited by the obscuration of distant time.

I think what is known so far about the fossil record supports punctuated equilibrium.

And I don't see that Krauss was outmatched in this area (fwiw, Krauss is a theoretical physicist, which means he studies more than just cosmology). The fact that Craig presents answers to problems we currently don't have answers for is not him "beating" Krauss at his own game. Krauss is dead on when he says "we don't know." It's that simple. Craig would like to convince you that he knows something Krauss and other theoretical physicists don't on the subject of physics in cosmology. He doesn't. That's why Krauss and others like him are unimpressed.

I am pretty sure Craig does not want to claim he knows more about cosmology that the physicists. He is mirroring the physicists results back to them with his religious twist. Also the audience is not expecting him to provide any new insights on cosmology, but use the ones that the physicists have discovered to make his religious point.

It's true we may be talking about the limits of our mathematical models when we talk about infinity, but we currently have no other word for it. Read my replies to stuntpickle about infinity: "counting an infinite number of things" presumes that infinity obeys the same laws as finite things. It's possible (likely) that there can't be "an infinite number of (discrete) things," because suggesting discreteness already presumes finiteness. Krauss is right in that all physicists and mathematicians "use" infinity and it does seem to function and have its uses. As for what that means regarding real-world referents is debatable, but Craig simply saying that it can't exist isn't convincing, nor is his trying to demonstrate the absurdity of infinity using finite calculations.

The problem of doing an infinite number of even mental events is at the heart of the axiom of choice in mathematics. One cannot assume that is logically permitted without the explicit axiom, at least that is how I remember it.

See above again on the problem of "nothing". All we can really say is that whatever created the universe wasn't limited by spacetime, and must have brought both into existence. But we still don't know what that thing is. It doesn't really supply support for the Judeo-Christo-Islamic theory of "something from nothing," because we don't know if it was nothing. It's still possible (maybe even likely) that it was quantum gravity. Again, let's wait for some tests to provide some kind of solid conclusion before we accept another theory that gives us no predictive power.

Yes, that is all we can say. Perhaps it was a multiverse outside our space and time that caused our universe to exist. That is why Craig's reference to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is critical. If he is correct about that theorem, even the multiverse had a beginning and we are caught in the same problem.

I'm not a member of a Judeo-Christo-Islamic group, but I don't mind giving credit where it is due. Part of their worldview, if I understand it, has been validated. It hasn't all been validated.

To validate the position there would first have to be a way to falsify it, and there's not.

Let me add something I haven't brought up yet: In mathematical logic there's something called the Conjunction Fallacy. Simply stated, if one probably is contained inside another one, the one that's contained will always be more likely to occur. So, if you look at two dice-roll sequences:

1. 531542
2. 3425651

The first sequence will ALWAYS be more likely because it is contained inside the second probability (the 531542 sequence occurs in the second, out of order, with a 6 added in an extra roll).

What this has to do with the Kalam is this: Let's accept that the universe must have a cause that precedes spacetime. Let's suppose that this cause could be narrowed down to God or quantum energy. All things being equal, we should always state the latter is more likely. Why? Because we know quantum energy exists, whether God exists or not. So even if God does exist, quantum energy fits inside that hypothesis the same way the 1st roll in the dice example fits inside the 2nd.

This is often sometimes informally expressed as "Occam's Razor", or "the simplest answer is usually the best." Every extra element we add to a theory adds something that can go wrong with it. God "seems" like a simple answer until one gets past the linguistic simplicity to imagining rendering ourselves in, say, AI terminology, but adding abilities that even we don't possess. In comparison, utilizing things we already know exist (like quantum energy) is to be much preferred, if only for the reason we don't have to worry about the probability of its existing at all.

I think the idea of God that you have and the one that I have are different. I suspect it doesn't even correspond to Craig's idea of God. I may be wrong, but I suspect that you are right about the God you are describing. It does not exist.

I don't think the Christians are interested in some deistic God. They want a God that is ultimately friendly and loves them--who will save them. I am interested in a God that makes sense of my own consciousness--and I trust is friendly. These Gods not only explain the origin of the universe but also of our and other species consciousness. In that sense it is the simplest explanation. The way to come up with indirect testable statements about that God is to ask questions about our own consciousness, how it relates to the individual brain and across individuals and even species.

As the Christians claim, we are made in the image of God. If you want to study God, look within.

[stuntpickle]

Limiting yourself to a few numbered points is certainly a good attempt at restricting the scope of the discussion, and, thus, preventing it from slipping away from us. I want to point out that what I'm about to do is not best described as a "refutation". I'm not going to try and offer counterarguments to debate the point; I'm simply going to point out the sections I see as being bald errors. It might also be a helpful exercise to try and render your thoughts in terms of numbered assertions, listed in terms of increasing consequence. I'll try to direct my post in this manner.

Also, I have a request: can we try to address your points one at a time? I'd really like to address all of them, but I think if we do, the conversation will run away from us. Let's try to deal with one point completely before moving on.

stuntpickle,


1. The Problem of Nothing

Most of my last post was related to Craig's definition of "nothing" in his "ex nihilo nihil fit" argument that he has stated argues for the first premise. My argument is that Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about this, from using observational examples from natural reality, to talking about the singularity, to talking about everything prior to spacetime. In all cases, his nothing doesn't seem to be nothing in absolute sense, so his entire basis for using that classic argument crumbles, as does his basis for accepting P1 as true.

Craig's not equivocating, but you are.

From what I can tell your argument throughout your posts about Craig's equivocation goes something like this:

1. The philosophical concept of "nothing", which means "not anything", is derived from a faulty conception of empty space.
2. The above error constitutes equivocation.
3. Craig uses the philosophical concept of "nothing".
Therefore, Craig is guilty of equivocation.

The problems with this argument are manifold.

First and foremost, your argument isn't valid. The conclusion cannot be reasonably deduced from the premises, regardless of the truth of those premises. Just because something originates in error does not mean that it must persist in error.

Second, the first two premises are obviously untrue. The philosophical concept of "nothing" is a priori and does not utilize the senses to arrive at the concept. Rational discourse is one of thought as opposed to observation. The concept of "nothing" came about within the context of the negation of being rather than observation of space. The concept of nothing did not come about because a philosopher discovered he was swimming in nothing, but rather because he wondered why he and everything else existed.

Of course, empty space was, at one time, thought to be figuratively representative of this nothing. This was simply an error of fact--not of equivocation. Equivocation is an error in which two different meanings of a word are used irrationally in the construction of a single argument. The fact that two different meanings of the term exist is not sufficient reason for an instance of equivocation. To be guilty of equivocation means to use, in an argument, two different meanings of the term in a fallacious manner, which is precisely what you and Krauss are doing. Craig is not doing this.

Krauss is arguing something like the following:

1. Craig says nothing can come from nothing.
2. We know from observation that nothing can produce various particles.
Therefore, Craig is wrong.

This is a perfect example of equivocation. "Nothing" in the first premise means "not anything". "Nothing" in the second premise means "quantum vacuum".

There is nothing (ha!) that I have read in any of Craig's works that commits the fallacy of equivocation. I say this not because I like Craig, but because it's true.

By the way, Craig does not discuss things "prior to" time. He discusses things outside time. Any examples he uses are not necessarily the bases of his assertions; they're just that: examples. His assertions are not derived wholly from observing the generation of Eskimo villages or his own coming into being, but rather these examples corroborate his assertions.

Did the very post you are now reading begin to exist? Did my idea to write it begin to exist? Did the thoughts contained therein begin to exist?

[OrphanPip]

FWIW, Eldridge and Gould's boldest claims have been widely criticized, and I would say the majority of evidence and evolutionary biologists are still on the Neo-Darwinist's side. Of course, that's ad populum and authority again but, again, it's hard for folks like us to go on much else.

I would just like to point out that PE vs. gradualism are debates within Neo-Darwinism, they're both on the Neo-Darwinist side.

Gould certainly had a tendency to over-emphasize how drastic changes between stability and rapid evolution occur, mostly in his popular literature. I'd say the current consensus is a more developed understanding of gradualism that admits how radically rates of evolutionary change can differ. PE is still important as a description of a phenomena in the fossil record.

This is a very good point. I do not disbelieve the theory of evolution. But I do believe most evolutionists are dishonest with most Christians when they try to explain the mechanisms in terms of gradualism, but then turn around and defend the fossil record in terms of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution has been in a bit of a crisis for a while. And although I suspect it will pull through with a more refined theory, I think it's a shame that its proponents won't own the inherent problems.

That's a common misunderstanding of Punctuated Equilibrium, it is still a form of gradualism, the point of PE has to do with discrete changes in the rate of change. On the other side, Phyletic Gradualism argues that changes in the rate are more continuous and less radical. Although, neither the PE or the PG side is arguing about substantial differences in rates of evolutionary change, since even small differences will have noticeable effect in geological time scale.

[stuntpickle]

That's a common misunderstanding of Punctuated Equilibrium, it is still a form of gradualism, the point of PE has to do with discrete changes in the rate of change. On the other side, Phyletic Gradualism argues that changes in the rate are more continuous and less radical. Although, neither the PE or the PG side is arguing about substantial differences in rates of evolutionary change, since even small differences will have noticeable effect in geological time scale.

Again, Pip, let me reiterate that I am not at all hostile to the theory of evolution. I think you here concede the point that I was making, which was not that PE was a complete departure from evolution. Perhaps your objection is simply one of semantics and that PE is properly considered gradualistic and that the true disagreement is with phyletic gradualism.

I have had some limited coursework in evolution and historical geology, but I suspect your acquaintance with the subject is vastly superior to mine. So let me just try to state what I understand to be true. Punctuated equilibrium came about because the previously understood mechanism of the gradual accumulation of changes was not adequately demonstrated in the fossil record. My understanding is that the fossil record does not represent an abundance of incremental change that would necessarily surround all the distinct speciation. My understanding is that PE came about to rectify this problem.

To be honest, it seems to me (although I could be wrong) that you are trying to obscure the point behind technicalities, which was my original complaint.

[stuntpickle]

Yes, that is all we can say. Perhaps it was a multiverse outside our space and time that caused our universe to exist. That is why Craig's reference to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is critical. If he is correct about that theorem, even the multiverse had a beginning and we are caught in the same problem.

Let's just go ahead and talk about the elephant in the room. As of right now, the scientific consensus is that the universe had an absolute edge. This is incredibly disconcerting to scientists because the edge is also an absolute limitation of science. Many scientists are simply unhappy that they seem to have discovered an absolute constraint of their own discipline. What has resulted is a wild attempt to turn science in on itself to avoid the edge. String theory isn't even really a theory; it's a metaphysical discussion about some far-off possible theory. Hawking's quantum tunneling genesis of the universe has not come from a necessity of the theory, but rather it is an attempt to avoid precisely what Hawking knows, and has stated, to be the alternative--extra-physical causation. Science is now in revolt against its own findings, and string theory is simply the foremost symptom.

[OrphanPip]

I have had some limited coursework in evolution and historical geology, but I suspect your acquaintance with the subject is vastly superior to mine. So let me just try to state what I understand to be true. Punctuated equilibrium came about because the previously understood mechanism of the gradual accumulation of changes was not adequately demonstrated in the fossil record. My understanding is that the fossil record does not represent an abundance of incremental change that would necessarily surround all the distinct speciation. My understanding is that PE came about to rectify this problem.

To be honest, it seems to me (although I could be wrong) that you are trying to obscure the point behind technicalities, which was my original complaint.

The point is that incremental changes are still occurring, but phenotypic stability occurs to varying degrees so that transitional figures within species do not readily appear in the fossil record. The argument between the PE people and the PG people is about how consistent the rate of gradual change is. PE does not contradict the explanation of evolution through the accumulation of gradual change. Specifically, it is using ideas from population genetics to explain why we see stasis despite gradual change always occurring at the individual level.

The take away point is that PE does not contradict that evolution occurs through small gradual changes, genetic drift is a continuous process. However, things like lineage splitting and major morphological changes are rare enough that they appear suddenly in the fossil record.

The main problem with Gould's over emphasis on PE is that we see gradual change and stasis within the fossil record. They both occur to different degrees. Also, genetic change occurs continuously even when phenotypes stay relatively stable. Gould sometimes argued that speciesation almost always occurred through his proposed mechanism, but this is unlikely. However, it is likely that something like what Gould proposed does explain some of the fossil record.

Where you get opposition to Gould is from gene-centric perspectives, like those of Dawkins. If you view the gene as the unit of selection, rather than the individual, PE does not address the emergence of new genes and thus is not explanatory in that model of evolutionary biology. Dawkins would view strict gradualism as sufficient explanation without the need to come up with an idea of radical change in evolutionary rates.

Edit: Just to clarify, both PG and PE admit that intermediate morphologies are not preserved in the fossil record (which explains the sudden jump). PG contends that a slow gradual rate accounts for the difference between the forms that appear in the fossil record. PE contends that rapid evolutionary change occurs in burst (over say 1 million years instead of 5 million), where small gradual changes occur faster under only certain conditions, and for most of the time morphology is static because of dynamics of population genetics creating stability in large groups.

Neither side would disagree that sometimes lineages maintain static morphologies for a long time. The disagreement is over how rapidly the change occurs whenever what event that facilitates the fixation of new traits happens.

The third and completely rejected alternative is the "hopeful monster" who pops out fully different from one generation to the next.

[stuntpickle]

The point is that incremental changes are still occurring, but phenotypic stability occurs to varying degrees so that transitional figures within species do not readily appear in the fossil record. The argument between the PE people and the PG people is about how consistent the rate of gradual change is. PE does not contradict the explanation of evolution through the accumulation of gradual change. Specifically, it is using ideas from population genetics to explain why we see stasis despite gradual change always occurring at the individual level.

The take away point is that PE does not contradict that evolution occurs through small gradual changes, genetic drift is a continuous process. However, things like lineage splitting and major morphological changes are rare enough that they appear suddenly in the fossil record.

The main problem with Gould's over emphasis on PE is that we see gradual change and stasis within the fossil record. They both occur to different degrees. Also, genetic change occurs continuously even when phenotypes stay relatively stable. Gould sometimes argued that speciesation almost always occurred through his proposed mechanism, but this is unlikely. However, it is likely that something like what Gould proposed does explain some of the fossil record.

Where you get opposition to Gould is from gene-centric perspectives, like those of Dawkins. If you view the gene as the unit of selection, rather than the individual, PE equilibrium does not address the emergence of new genes and thus is not explanatory in that model of evolutionary biology. Dawkins would view strict gradualism as sufficient explanation without the need to come up with an idea of radical change in evolutionary rates.

I think I have a grasp on what you stated here. My point is that in public discussions people like Dawkins propound PG as a mechanism, yet they defend the fossil record from the prospective of PE. The reason a lot of fundamentalist Christians argue about lack of transitional forms isn't because Christians are stupid, but because most evolutionists are reluctant to actually discuss the different interpretations of their own theory, as they presume that any discussion about disagreement or lack of unity within the discussion of evolution will be interpreted as a weakness of the theory. I do not think the theory of evolution is in jeopardy, but I do believe that the proposed mechanisms are now being hotly contested.

Would you agree with my last point?


I guess I should address a disagreement about "stasis and gradual change" existing in the fossil record. I understand that stasis is adequately represented in the fossil record, but I also understand that gradual change is not sufficiently represented for PG to be the primary mechanism. In fact, any stasis is, itself, a reasonable objection to PG.

[YesNo]

Let's just go ahead and talk about the elephant in the room. As of right now, the scientific consensus is that the universe had an absolute edge. This is incredibly disconcerting to scientists because the edge is also an absolute limitation of science. Many scientists are simply unhappy that they seem to have discovered an absolute constraint of their own discipline. What has resulted is a wild attempt to turn science in on itself to avoid the edge. String theory isn't even really a theory; it's a metaphysical discussion about some far-off possible theory. Hawking's quantum tunneling genesis of the universe has not come from a necessity of the theory, but rather it is an attempt to avoid precisely what Hawking knows, and has stated, to be the alternative--extra-physical causation. Science is now in revolt against its own findings, and string theory is simply the foremost symptom.

I agree. Physicists are trying to avoid any extra-physical, God-like causation. That is what prompts speculation about the multiverse. The characteristic of a God-like cause is that some choice was made. The multiverse could operate on chance.

If there was choice involved, then some sort of consciousness made the choice. I hope it is friendly and something we can relate to, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be.

[OrphanPip]

I think I have a grasp on what you stated here. My point is that in public discussions people like Dawkins propound PG as a mechanism, yet they defend the fossil record from the prospective of PE. The reason a lot of fundamentalist Christians argue about lack of transitional forms isn't because Christians are stupid, but because most evolutionists are reluctant to actually discuss the different interpretations of their own theory, as they presume that any discussion about disagreement or lack of unity within the discussion of evolution will be interpreted as a weakness of the theory. I do not think the theory of evolution is in jeopardy, but I do believe that the proposed mechanisms are now being hotly contested.

Certainly there is always going to be debate over the mechanisms of such a complex process. Yet, I think there is justification in why speakers about evolution are hesitant about presenting these debates, because there is a history of misunderstanding and misrepresentation by anti-evolutionist. Eugenie Scott had this problem in Texas in 2009 when she went to speak on new textbook standards. The school board wanted there to be a "strengths and weaknesses" section on evolutionary theory in the science books. The problem is that the technical debates about the pace of evolution are so subtle that it is better to keep on point about the things evolutionary biologist do agree on.

I'm also not sure Dawkins attempts to defend the record through PE, I've read the Ancestor's Tale and he is a clear supporter of PG. For Dawkins the fossil record presents sudden changes because of its incompleteness (which PG and PE agree on), and he thinks the change occurs over longer scales of time (which PG disagrees with PE on).

Just as a visual aid to make the distinction clear:

PG



PE



We can see from the visuals that the actual distinction between PG and PE is subtle and often the disagreement is overemphasized in popular discussion of evolutionary biology.

[stuntpickle]

Certainly there is always going to be debate over the mechanisms of such a complex process. Yet, I think there is justification in why speakers about evolution are hesitant about presenting these debates, because there is a history of misunderstanding and misrepresentation by anti-evolutionist. Eugenie Scott had this problem in Texas in 2009 when she went to speak on new textbook standards. The school board wanted there to be a "strengths and weaknesses" section on evolutionary theory in the science books. The problem is that the technical debates about the pace of evolution are so subtle that it is better to keep on point about the things evolutionary biologist do agree on.

I'm also not sure Dawkins attempts to defend the record through PE, I've read the Ancestor's Tale and he is a clear supporter of PG. For Dawkins the fossil record presents sudden changes because of its incompleteness (which PG and PE agree on), and he thinks the change occurs over longer scales of time (which PG disagrees with PE on).

Just as a visual aid to make the distinction clear:

PG



PE



We can see from the visuals that the actual distinction between PG and PE is subtle and often the disagreement is overemphasized in popular discussion of evolutionary biology.

Excellent post, Pip. But I think the point that critics of PG rightly make is that the number of lost changes one must presume to believe PG is unwarranted. If I understand PG correctly, then the number of gradual changes in the actual populations of creatures would dwarf any static population. That is to say that the road to speciation should be, even in the fossil record, littered with numerous steps as well as false steps since the representations of incremental change would vastly outnumber distinct speciations. It is my understanding that a number of stumpy in-betweens should be evident that are not. The near complete absence of such steps seems to me highly improbable.

As for Dawkins, I think he simplifies to a position of PE in discussion with anti-evolutionists for the reasons you state, but I don't think that makes it right.

By the way, I never meant to suggests that Dawkins explicitly defends PE. He usually just says something like "the fossil record adequately demonstrates my theory of evolution" when really the Christian is lodging the same complaint as the PE supporter, and Dawkins knows it but doesn't want to touch it with a ten-foot stick.

[stuntpickle]

Just because I can't think of anything that doesn't have a cause that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing. That thing might be the universe. Why not?

Fine. Who cares. This isn't an objection to anything. Try to organize that into a relevant argument, and I think you'll encounter insurmountable difficulties or, at least, come up with a bad argument. I guess I'm trying to say that severe skepticism and asking why not over and over again doesn't accomplish anything and can be used to frustrate any commonly accepted fact or intuition. The purpose of reason is not to establish things with 100% certainty. We're just concerned with what's likely. And there doesn't seem to be sufficient reason for special pleading in the case of the universe.

What if the universe is really made of jello, and we just don't know it because we're living in the matrix? Why not?