Well, there is some truth to that! ;-)
Your observation that the premises of Kalam's argument were correct was almost correct. Technically, one needs to include a premise that the universe IS one of those everythings or one of those (insert whatever weaseling word is being used). And in some arguments the inclusion of the universe as an applicable thing is very much the critical point. But not for me.
But you are correct, the real problem is with the premises. As you saw, I gave the student three free premises and he took them right out of the latest wording of the cosmological argument being popularized by Bill Craig. The very most that even untrue (and completely gratuitous premises) can accomplish is to "prove" that the universe had a "cause". And he could not do even that because he insisted that the universe was a subset of "everything" so it is entirely meaningless for us to make a statement of proposed fact outside of time and space and the totality of all that exists--as we consider our home the universe to be.
But back to the premises. Do we know what causes dark energy? Do we know what causes dark matter? What causes Gravity? Do we know that the universe needs a cause? The answer is "NO" to all of those questions. If time is conditional upon our universe for existence, then the universe has existed FOREVER (as long as existence or time has). Something that has existed for all of time hardly requires a cause!
I was somewhat amused when greg or ee realized that he had let his (Craig's) argument slip outside of our universe where the current generation of creationists rely on science to insist that the universe HAD A BEGINNING (the Big Bang)...THUS, thus, thus... :-). He then got a bit hysterical and used the coupling of "PHYSICAL universe"--I think it was 5 or 6 times in one sentence! He was obviously thinking that changing his second premise to "the PHYSICAL universe had a beginning" could somehow extract him of his difficulties. Of course his hope was an uneducated wish and it was completely illusory. I would then have had to ask why he was using the adjective "physical" as a qualifier--because you don't add complexities to a premise without necessity. Eventually, in chasing down the non-physical things he was excluding from the premise, we would have found that he was trying to exempt his personal uncaused friend from ALL premises even while the existence of his friend was that which was to be proved as the very last, "I told you so."
Many scientists don't think the universe had a beginning, many don't think the question is meaningful in any way, and some could care less, and the rest don't give a damn.
In any event, if we accept the premise that something always comes from something (that something cannot come from nothing), then it writes his friend out of the picture--unless he/it is fraudulently excluded from all premises a priori--and gratuitously slapped down as a conclusion! And if we accept the alternative that something does NOT need to be caused--then it makes his friend entirely gratuitous and a fabulous construction!!
Nice to have you here. Most everything here is proved or disproved by the King James Bible, unfortunately! :-) |
