We are here debating the Kalam Cosmological Argument from a deistic rather than theistic perspective. Carlo Alvaro is taking the affirmative; Richard Carrier the negative. See our initial entry for all the details, including an index to all entries yet published.

-:-

This is the regrettable stage of the debate when one debater accuses the other of not understanding. 

I. Validity and Soundness of the Argument

Dr. Carrier writes,

Dr. Alvaro misunderstands my point. His argument succeeds only if both premises are always true—in all possible conditions. Otherwise, Proposition 3 is not deductively the case.

Dr. Carrier uses following argument,

  1. Clowns own lizards.
  2. Joey is a clown.
  3. Therefore Joey owns a lizard.

to shows that,

Proposition 3 only follows if Premises 1 and 2 are always true. If some clowns don’t own lizards, or Joey sometimes isn’t a clown (but, say, an accountant), Premise 3 cannot follow.

But that is incorrect. The argument is formally valid and, thus, the conclusion follows by logical necessity—even if the premises are false. Rather, that is what we call an unsound argument, i.e., logically valid with at least one false premise. But it’s not a good argument.[1]

Whether all clowns own lizards can be (relatively easily) falsified, but the Kalam is different. We cannot prove with 100% certainty whether the premises are true. I applaud Dr. Carrier’s confidence when he declares that,  

it cannot be the case that P1 [of the Kalam] is “always” true.

But where is Dr. Carrier’s evidence that P1 is not always true? Dr. Carrier may not dismiss the truth of P1 by simply saying that he can “imagine” a possible world in which objects spontaneously materialize from nothing or that scientists have not yet ruled that possibility out.  He needs concrete evidence—but there is none. Conversely, we have excellent evidence for P1. Therefore, P1 is true.

Moreover, there is almost nothing that we know with 100% certainty, e.g., Dr. Carrier cannot cannot disprove that he is a brain in a vat. But then, according to Dr. Carrier’s logic, the possibility that he is a brain in a vat counts as evidence that he is—therefore, he is a brain in a vat! 

I have shown that we have excellent evidence that the premises of the Kalam are more plausibly true than their negations. 

II. Evidence for P1

1. It cannot be denied that all things that begin to exist come into existence by something else. To falsify this, bring me an object that came into existence by nothing.

2. We have zero evidence that, sometimes, things come into existence by nothing—zero! Furthermore, it is metaphysically impossible.

3. If things could come into existence by nothing, then anything could. But then, 

  • Why don’t things come into existence by nothing all the time?
  • Why did it happen only once? According to Dr. Carrier, it seems, after the materialization of the universe from nothing and by nothing, this bizarre phenomenon stopped.
  • Why did it stop?

4. Out of nothing, nothing comes. When Dr. Carrier defines “nothing” as a state, he slyly assumes that the universe is eternal.

II. Evidence for P2

1. Actual infinity is a concept in infinite set theory, but it’s not physically instantiable. If you think it is, show me an example. Dr. Carrier’s fingernail example is very cute but modally fallacious. Simply put, it’s a modal operator shift fallacy—i.e., deriving necessity from possibility.

2. An actual infinite number of events cannot be traversed (that’s my staircase example).[2]

3. The universe—space, time, matter, energy—came into existence a finite time ago. There is no state prior to that. And even if there were one, it would have to be finite in the past. All the alternative models you have read about are quite imaginative but amount to zero evidence. Maybe one day scientists… Well, “maybe” is not evidence. Dr. Carrier resorts to an ad hominem attack: 

Dr. Alvaro must be reading physics books from thirty years ago.

That’s just silly. On the contrary, I keep abreast with the current research in cosmology and cosmogony, and I confer with my physicist colleagues at my university. 

Therefore, it follows that the universe came into existence by something else.

III. Conclusion

People who reject the Kalam endorse either of the following: 

(a) The universe is eternal. 

(b) The universe came into being from nothing and by nothing. 

Which of the two does Dr. Carrier endorse? Maybe he’s afraid to stick his neck out. However, so far, Dr. Carrier’s argument has been the following: Science has not yet disproved that the universe might be eternal or that things could materialize from nothing. Therefore, the universe came into being by nothing and from nothing because “nothing” has no rules and turns into something.

I often wonder about the genuineness of atheists’ claims. There is something diabolical (pun intended) about atheism. Atheists will go to great lengths to deny the existence of a god—even as far as maintaining the absurd position that the universe is, well, just there, willy nilly, or that reality can choose to begin to exist from nothing, by nothing, and for no particular reason, and accidentally fine-tune itself for intelligent life.

In my view, a deistic god that transcends time and space brought the universe into existence, though I do not believe that this god has a relationship with humans.[3] 

I do not argue that the Kalam is sound because I believe in a god; rather, I believe in a god because the Kalam is sound. In order for me to give up such a belief, I would have to go against established scientific and philosophical facts and believe either that the universe is eternal or that the universe came into being from nothing and by nothing—both of which are absurd and unsubstantiated propositions. Yet again, in his latest reply to my argument, Dr. Carrier offered only more suppositions and speculations. As a result, he has failed, once again, to show that the Kalam is an unsound argument. 

Endnotes

[1] See my Logical Thinking Course on Academia.edu: Sec. 3. Good arguments.

[2] I recommend reading my “Stairway Paradox” on page 7 of my paper and Alexander R. Pruss’s Infinity, Causation, and Paradox; also you may watch Dr. Bill Craig’s YouTube video “Worst Objections to Kalam Cosmological Argument” especially objection #4 & #5.

[3] The details of my argument are presented in my book Deism: A Rational Journey From Disbelief to The Existence of God

-:-

Read Dr. Carrier’s Third Reply to Alvaro

§

To comment use Add Comment field at bottom or click a Reply box next to a comment. See Comments & Moderation Policy.

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading