Talk:Kalam cosmological argument

Untitled

As it currently stands it presents the argument as if it a valid logical argument which it definitely is not. It downplays the refutations of it as if it is just matter of discourse.. This article is nothing but a theist preaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.39.188 (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It should be made clear that this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology and hence "occupies itself with the unique content of analyzing the supernatural". The fact that Craig Lane used that syllogism in debates with physicists helped blur the lines and this article in its present form is not helping either. Xavatar (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Xavatar: I agree too. Veverve (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: IMO this page should end up merged into Cosmological_argument#Kalām_cosmological_argument if there's anything of theological value to be salvaged (not my domain). The reference to Western Philosophy in the introduction seems very misleading to me: Theology is not Philosophy but this gives the "argument" a different kind of luster. Xavatar (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Infinite/beginningless progression of time is not an "actual infinite"

In the list of objections/counter-arguments against the KCA what seems to miss is the argument that the infinite progression of time is not an "actual infinity" (the past and future moment do not exist, only the ever ongoing now), but hasn't any notorious and recent philosopher elaborated that claim? An "actual infinity of things" is a contradiction, but as regards to time, such an infinity is not the case as the infinite moments in time do NOT occur "at the same time" (exactly because of what time IS).

I only know of this argument made by F. Engels in the Anti-Dühring, in which Dühring made a similar claim as the KCA, arguing for the begin of time. Duhring stole the argument from Kant (Critique of Pure Reason), but Kant showed that both sides (an absolute begin of time and time without begin) would lead to a contradiction.

Could that be added (Engels/Anti-Dühring chapt. Philosophy of nature. Space and time.) as a source and providing (in brief) that counter argument? (of course, a more recent argument arguing for the same position made by some contemporary philosopher would be preferred...) R.heusdens (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

What happened to this page?

This page used to clearly express the principles and concepts involved, and referenced the arguments for and against. Now it is an advertisement for someone called William Lane Craig, which is merely paraphrasing the original concepts in what appears to be an effort to look original and promote their use of the argument (even though nothing of substance has been added). And on top of that, a huge portion about philosophical discussion of the argument has been removed. It is laughable that Kant was reduced to a line right at the end. 137.111.13.167 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You must be joking! It's sort of like saying that the Atheism Wikipedia page is now an advertisement for Richard Dawkins... only that Dawkins is THE current foremost atheist in the world - just like William Lane Craig who is considered the world's foremost Christian apologist. Also, your claim that the argument has had no substance added is incorrect. Lane Craig has reformulated this argument, and if you have actually properly done a literature review in the area, you would also know that Lane Craig has developed this argument in several notable journals in quite some detail. That's why this page also discusses Theories of time, Existence of infinities, Quantum indeterminacy... What philosophical textbook are you using, if you haven't heard about these most recent arguments??? 129.180.147.130 (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a fan of William Lane Craig, but to call him the world's foremost Christian apologist is ridiculous, as is calling Dawkins the foremost atheist in the world. I share the original user's concern; Kalam *vastly* pre-dates WLC but the article does not represent that fact. WLC is absolutely notable in this context, and his work is significant and deserves attention in this article. But as it stands, it really needs to either be made more balanced, or be renamed "William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument" (a renaming I'm pretty sure Bill would oppose! ":-) ) 2605:6000:F340:A500:14:4DC4:A83F:9BB3 (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs more work. I am not sure of the extent, if at all, to which what is needed comes under the heading of cleaning it up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. I disagree strongly with the rest of the cleanup box complaint, and yet I also disagree strongly with the fan of William Lane Craig, and have myself a cosmological argument that I might name after Lawrence M. Krauss the author of A Universe from Nothing who travels the world debating alongside Dawkins and against W.L.Craig; the argument has not just "received criticism" in his case; he has demolished it almost completely and theists like Craig only fail to accept this and shut up because their mental outlook on science and the world is still stuck in the Bronze Age; I address this myself in an argument I hope to publish on a page on my website some time soon when i have time ... and I may even try by email to get Dawkins, Krauss, Harris et alios to start using my form of the demolition of Craig and the KCA, to force even more theist listeners without closed minds to accept that the KCA is vacuous in the light of quantum physics.

HOWEVER on reworking this page again:

• The cleanup demander is quite wrong: the subject is perfectly clear although it has had a long history of developments; it is not "conflating" two necessarily different topics as he complains. The "topic of medieval theology" is only the extent to which the medieval theologians talked about the idea that if the universe is here now but was not always here, something must have happened; and in the theistic bronze age mindset, that implies proof of existence of a deity. THey would have been thrilled and preoccupied about the fact that even before their new testament's era, the Greeks were onto this. It is not a separate thing from the rest at all. The "modern anglophone debate surrounding 'New Atheism'" is just the 21st century's continuation of that same argument! They are not two separate topics, merely two of a number of eras in which the one topic has been brought to the fore in some way in the society as it existed and exists now, from the crowd shouting in the Agora in ancient Athens to the crowd Tweeting about the latest addition on YouTube. So they certainly do NOT need to be separated. To do so would produce duplication, and the call would be as urgent as it has ever been in the whole life of Wikipedia for the two articles to be MERGED. The disposal of the KCA, which by his devoting a book to it and continuing to base appearances in universities (which get on YouTube) in debates against the new atheists W.L.Craig proves he is too stuck in bronze age thinking to grasp, is to say this: thinking about the singularity 13.8 billion years ago in layman's terms is like claiming that God must be there because he is needed to refill the sun with oil every night so that it can shine and burn all day the next day, since it must be basically just like a great big oil lamp that burns to give us heat and light. This is demolished by the fact that the sun is a ball of nuclear fusion material 333000 times the mass of the earth and doesn't burn oil. Aristotle did not know this; that is why he concluded that there must be a prime mover. The early or mediaeval Christians, Neoplatonists, Muslim scholars, indeed even the renaissance and later scholars and scientists (including, say, Newton, though Voltaire saw no need for God) did not know about nuclear fusion, so had no way to imagine how the sun goes on shining. That W.L.Craig continues to use the KCA is odd and yet there is a lively debate still on the university lecture theatre stages and in TV studios round the world (and see also for example Dawkins versus Cardinal Pell on Australian TV, ABC 2012, Qanda show, 10-4-2012, YouTube, especially 21 minutes into the hour). The theists say "The universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause" just as Aristotle did. And we, the new atheist empirical scientists, are aware of the extraordinary quality of what nuclear physics and quantum physics tell us about the material of reality at that level. It was most probably totally applicable 13.8 billion years ago, so we say that the presumption by the modern proponents of the KCA that the singularity implies that the universe began to exist is wrong, since perhaps it did not begin to exist then, but was there in a pre-singularity form before that, but in a space-time context totally inaccessible to anything but speculation and mathematics; or perhaps it did begin in some sense, but out of some previous quantum-physics state in which the meaning of the word "existence" has to be completely rethought. Therefore the Aristotelian, Islamic, and W.L. Craig mindsets, all basically in bronze age thinking mode still, are simply not capable of grasping that their syllogism is as meaningless as questions like "what is the electrical conductivity of jealousy?" (We all know that envy is green so I didn't suggest asking about colour.)
• As I mentioned, but it is important, the argument is not "a topic of medieval theology"; it is about philosophy, bridging metaphysical speculation and elementary natural philosophy, in the sense it used to have before such thinking evolved into what was eventually renamed "science". So it is about that aspect of philosophy, but it is also about epistemology, since it uses the now (because of quantum theory and the uncertainty about any conventional thinking applying there) doubtful syllogism which I have just discussed. Yes, we have a case where quantum theory has changed the nature of the sort of wording used in what was, once, apparently almost a pure logical syllogism! The core of the KCA is that formula, that people once thought was almost a tautology, but now physicists (including quantum physicists and cosmologists) have shown that it is false! But the bronze-age-minded folk fail to accept this. I am aware that this situation is probably still going to have to be described as a clash of two schools of thought without taking sides. but the whole page kind of needs revising for this.
• The whole article needs revising with regard to what it says now as well as the overall structure, to clarify and correct the wording in detail. Example: in the 2nd paragraph in the page summary at the top it says that the KCA has been debated between Craig and a list of names but doesn't mention the most prominent, Dawkins and Krauss, though Krauss wrote his book (AUFN, above) specifically to address this precise point and demollish WLCraig on it and there are YouTube shows of Craig versus others where almost the whole hour is about this modern KCA. OK, you might say, Krauss gets covered in detail; but the top is supposed to be a summary of what's below and AUFN is central to anti-WWLCraig.
• It is possible that the amount devoted to WLCraig is a bit excessive and any parts that read like an advertisement for his books should be toned down though I don't see any actual praise, just a lot of mentions. There must be important mentions in books by authors not making a career out of preaching KCA on stages and TV and in books he hopes sell a lot as WLCraig is so the bibliography needs improvement & balance.
• I do not expect the article to be able to present my argument here as to why LKrauss's AUFN has demolished the KCA as used by WLCraig because that is "original research" (or imagination) and I am not famous enough to quote; but the 'Modern debate' section says most of what it needs to about AUFN making modern use of KCA pointless as it is dead.
• The extent to which Kant on KCA is needed is not clear to me; perhaps his view should be covered in the article on him. Was he for it aor against it? Did he move the argument forward the way the physics of the 20th century did? Or was everything pretty much the supposed syllogism, almost unchanged from Aristotle's prime mover, apart from him writing a lot of words in German about it? I don;t know that area but I am unaware he changed anything between Aristotle and WLCraig! Nobosy else did and the article discussion of most of history should probably be about the infuence of its existence had on thinkers when considering other subjects round about it. Or, if somebody was killed for questioning it in the Vatican Inquisition, (was anybody?)

In 'Critique of Pure Reason' (Kant) this issue is one of his 4 famous antinomies, in which he demonstrated both sides (both eternity of time and begin of time) to lead to a contradiction. Duhring stole the argument from Kant, but showed only one side of that proof, arguing time had a begin. Engels then in Anti-Duhring (Philosophy of Nature. Space and Time [[1]]), exposes Duhring of having literally stolen the argument for a begin of time from Kant, showing that an infinity of time would lead to a contradiction, while thowing away the other side. Engels argues that infinity is full of contradictions, and that just because infinity of time (as existing simultaneously) is a contradiction, the universe evolves endlessly in time. This type of argument (which still holds!) is missing in the arguments of KCA. Isn't there any more modern version of that argument around somewhere? (how can anyone have missed that the contradiction of an "actual infinity" of time is only an appearent contradiction, not a real one.) R.heusdens (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• The cleanup complainant says the lead should look something like it did circa September 11 2014).but then it said the subject of the article, the KCA, is a modern thing done by WLCraig which complainant says is false. Or he says that to say that the KCA is a modern formulation is false, but did they use that phrase? Or is the phrase KCA as WLCraig gave as his boook title the start of the full phrase KCA being established as the name of the topic of debate? DId anybody but the Islamists ever hear the word Kalam? Did Kant use that term at all (I mean using the Arabic Kalam in German as WLC does and is done here in English)?

And Craig-fan, stop being a fan of his! He's really epistemologically and given all the above, an idiot! Iph (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Aquinas not engaged in the Kalam argument

FYI - Aquinas is not engaged in the Kalam argument. There is a great deal of Thomistic literature establishing that Aquinas is arguing against hierarchically ordered causes rather than the temporally ordered causes of the Kalam. William Lane Craig specifically notes that the Kalam argument was opposed by Aquinas and supported by Bonaventure. Just because an argument involves an argument against infinite regress does not make it a Kalam argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.79.189 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a typo, and you mean "that Aquinas is arguing for hierarchically ordered causes rather than the temporally ordered causes of the Kalam." Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph with reference (Stanford Uni philosophy) to distinguish Kalam from other approaches in the intro. If someone thinks it belongs somewhere in the body of the article and can find a suitable place, please go ahead! The current article has much interesting material, but I think its organization leads to confusion. For example, what Dawkins says about Aquinas is pretty irrelevent to Kalam, however it might be useful if we rearrange the articles to bring out that one section is really about what scientists say in this regard: (though of course Dawkins is not a cosmologist either..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Jelliffe (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

---

I bit the bullet and moved the Dawkins material into a section "Discussion by Scientists" (previously just "Quantum Physics".) I think this gives a better flow of ideas: his objections to Aquinas are strident and dubious and partly off-topic, but I can see why someone might think they are relevant to the Kalam argument: though IMHO it is still quite intrusive to put in material about one thing as if it were about another but I did not want to do a major edit...

I removed the extraneous sentence about the existence of God not proving the need for prayer, etc, since that has never been in dispute by anyone --has it?--(see Special Revelation) and consequently only adds noise. Rather than say "Dawkins mistakes Aquinas" I use the more neutral "Dawkins takes Aquinas" for NPOV.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Another source arguing against Kalam, unsure if it's regarded reliable

Dan Barker's book, Godless, provides an extensive treatment of the KCM. I don't know that Barker would be regarded as a reliable source in his own right, but the book is probably notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Just a possibility. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If his book deals with the KCM in a relevant manner then it is notable, and worthy of inclusion.137.111.13.167 (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Dan Barker's objections fall too far short of acceptable standards of analytic philosophy.

1. Depending upon ontology, mathematical and abstract objects also exist necessarily, and are alluded to by Craig in professional literature and debates.

2. The qualities of God under Classical Theism are categorised as qualitative, not quantitative infinities in that they are not amenable to infinite set paradoxes such as Hilbert's Hotel.

3. The latter objection is also a red herring: The KCA specifies a cause that is necessarily transcendent of space-time (timeless/immaterial), and powerful, but not infinitely powerful.

Criticisms that don't understand the subject matter they address, falling short of basic consensus academic standards, are generally ignored in professional literature; they should probably not be included here.109.144.234.99 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We should remove Barker's criticisms from the page.--TMD (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And we are to take your word that Barker and Michael Martin "don't understand the subject matter they address" and fall "short of basic consensus academic standards"? Airborne84 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to list Michael Martin's criticisms, you need to go to Martin's work. Barker's is not a substitute. And it's not just my word. The IP above has given the arguments as to why these objections are inadequate for this article.--TMD (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no expert editors on Wikipedia. The IP's arguments are not a reliable source. Please also see WP:TALK#USE where it says, "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." Please also see WP:SOAP for some additional guidelines to consider here.

In any case, I myself was on the fence about Barker's book. Yet, if you refer to WP:RS, a source comprises three parts, not just the author. The publisher and the work itself (such as a reliance on scholarly sources, etc.) can affect a source's reliability. In this case, since Barker relies on Martin for the arguments, I lean toward keeping it. And since that is the current consensus, you will need to garner support for a new consensus. That is possible, of course, as consensus can change. But simply restating that you think it should be stricken and pointing to arguments that belong on other forums besides Wikipedia is not the best way to do that. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's plainly evident from reading the primary reference by Craig on the topic [William Lane Craig, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000)] that Barker/Martin's arguments do not understand the subject material.

Note: page 192 in which Craig discusses the properties of the cause; an explanation as to why it is "enormously powerful"; no mention implicitly or explicitly with regard to "infinite" power. Page 193; discussing abstract objects as necessary alternatives to a personal being in deducing the cause. Beginning at page 102; discusses the ontology and properties of actual infinites.

These are, individually, not difficult ideas in philosophy, and it's not difficult to see why Barker's arguments fall far short of basic consensus standards. You're free to include them if you wish, but they look glaringly out of place among the other objections. 109.144.219.79 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Barker wrote the book and Martin apparently assisted in this area. If they didn't want their ideas to be critiqued and criticized by the public, they shouldn't have published their ideas. We don't cancel out one source in light of another using our own opinions as editors on Wikipedia. If two sources have contrasting positions and they meet Wikipedia's requirements, we include them both—considering WP:WEIGHT and other policies and guidelines. Thanks for your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, there are WP:RELEVANCE concerns with two of Barker's objections. Note also that these two objections were written without Martin's help, raising WP:RELIABILITY concerns.

His first objection is not an argument against the first premiss but qualifies only as non sequitur commentary. Premiss one being exclusive to theistic philosophy is irrelevant to the veracity of premiss one.

His third objection is a red herring that disputes the coherency of Classical Theism. It is not relevant to the KCA because the KCA does not argue for an infinitely powerful being.

The second objection (the only one among the three written with Martin's help), though unsubstantive [and addressed by primary literature on the KCA already in situ at the time Barker's book was written], is the only criticism he raises that actually addresses the veracity of either the premises or conclusion in the KCA.109.144.208.35 (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but, as I noted above, the talk page is not for discussion about the subject matter itself. Thus, the discussion about non sequiturs and red herrings may be of use on other websites, but not on this talk page. Airborne84 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've raised WP:RELEVANCE and WP:RELIABILITY concerns. Do you have any objections to them?109.144.239.96 (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that there are relevance issues. Barker is clearly and ostensibly talking about the topic of this article. Do you have a concern that he is not? As far as WP:RELIABILITY, it's not immediately clear to me what the link is to that specific page. I will make a guess that you are talking about Barker as a reliable source. That's fair. I think we're at deadlock on the issue regarding the NBE passage that Michael Martin informed. However, there is the issue of the other two passages. It may be fair to say that the first comment doesn't require any degrees in philosophy. It sounds like Barker's personal opinion. But, biased sources are allowed on Wikipedia. And since Barker is obviously a biased source, it would be appropriate to more clearly attribute his background in the text as a biased source. I'll do that. As far as the other passage that appears to delve into philosophy and may not have been informed by Martin, if you feel strongly that it should be removed, I'm amenable to that. I am not sure if it will be an improvement to Wikipedia to do that, but let me know if you do. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the only objection of Barker's that would be qualified here would be his BE/NBE argument formulated with the help of Martin. Even though it is not a cogent argument, Martin is an authority in the field and a somewhat reliable source. Barker's other objections fail every criterion of inclusion: Reliable sources, relevance to the article (personal commentary that has little to do with the truth or negation of any premise, criticism of an infinitely endowed cause when the KCA does not imply an infinitely endowed cause) and cogency. I'll reiterate that I won't complain at length if you're entrenched in the idea that you want to include them. The main problem is that they underrepresent the counterposition, and finding any rebuttals by reputable sources is difficult because the arguments are generally of the caliber that are ignored by reputable sources.109.144.239.96 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

All right. I feel that Barker's first comment on the phrasing of the first premise should be retained.

Regarding his "self-refuting" assertion related to infinities, that may or may not be of interest to readers, and I won't attempt to address its validity or lack thereof (not the purpose of this talk page). Since its current inclusion in the article has consensus, I suggest we leave the question of whether to retain that open to further comments by editors. I'm OK with leaving or striking it. Thanks for your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Its inclusion in the article does not have consensus. If the arguments are from Michael Martin, then they need to be sourced from Michael Martin's own work. There is no need to include Dan Barker in the article.--TMD (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONSENSUS. It reached consensus from editing. It is possible to change the consensus, but it does not appear we are there yet. Two editors support the inclusion of material from Barker and two do not, to varying degrees. Airborne84 (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dawkins getting "laughed at" for trying to define "nothing"

I understand this is more anecdotal, and "popularist" type of evidence, against those who have tried to argue against the Kalam cosmological argument, but Dawkins was "very famously" known for becoming paranoid, and accusing the ABC of "setting the crowd up", and them "clearly being biased" when having a somewhat pseudo-debate on the ABC program against Cardinal Pell. When Dawkins asked the crowd "What are you laughing about?", Pell famously replied, "I think they find it funny that you're trying to define - NOTHING!" 129.180.147.130 (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Guth's claim on an eternal universe

I deleted a claim by Sean Carroll regarding Guth's views of an eternal universe. The source article is a post-debate commentary by Carroll after a debate against Craig that went rather badly and the reference to Guth's claim is vague and non-specific. More importantly, it contradicts the findings of Guth's work and Guth's written claims on the topic, which specify _future-eternal_ inflation, rather than past-eternal inflation. http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/didth-frame.html http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/etern1-frame.html I'd be interested to see if someone can verify this claim more substantively. Then we can think of amending the article appropriately. 31.55.59.88 (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Contradicting ideas can exist in the same article. We don't interpret which is "correct". Are you saying that Carroll is not a reliable source regarding this? Airborne84 (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Carroll was quoting Guth's personal opinion on this, which should not be included in the article.--TMD (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

But Guth does not only say that, but also pointed out that the Borde-Guth-Vilekin theorema is not conclusive about the past eternity of the universe - and that is not an opinion but a scientific fact. There are known loopholes for which the theorema does not hold. But outside of a factual demonstration in the form of a theoretical well defined concistent model, that is only a possibility.

So we shouldn't be quoting Guth, the co-author of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem that William Lane Craig claims points to a definite beginning of the universe, as saying that no, the BGV theorem can't be interpreted that way, because it's only "Guth's personal opinion"? Excuse me, but why, then, should we be quoting Craig, an apologist and a non-physicist, at all? This article is becoming an unreasonable puff piece for Craig as all of the criticism (and he has received much in the two or three decades he has been promoting his version of the Kalam on his "never-ending-debate-tour") of Craig's ideas are vaguely worded, or even stated in a way that appears to back up Craig's claims. Why, for instance, is it okay to quote Vilenkin as saying "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.", but not Alan Guth's "personal opinion"?

Not to mention that what the conclusion of the 2012 paper by Audrey Mithani & Alexander Vilenkin actually says is: "At this point, it seems that the answer to this question [Did the universe have a beginning?] is probably yes (Note that we use the term "beginning" as being synonimous [sic] to past incompleteness)" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

Mojowiha (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What should be added that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorema has meaning only for the classical description of spacetime. So in that sense it does not exclude an eternal universe. But cosmology has not conclusively demonstrated, in the form of a consistent model, how that could be the case. Despite that, Guth states that the cosmological question of eternity vs. beginning of time, is an open question. Further, Guth has claimed on several recorded occasions he thinks the universe to be very likely eternal. I see no reason why that couldn't be added, as it is well known.

What should be added (to avoid misinterpretation) is the fact that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin is a restriction for classical description of spacetime only (universes which on average expand, have a finite classical spacetime past), it does not restrict quantum mechanically defined spacetimes, and so the cosmological dispute has not been settled on that issue. R.heusdens (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Martin

Two passages for appraisal:

Michael Martin objects to this idea, stating: "it should be obvious that Craig's conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation."[32] Martin states that Craig takes his argument too far beyond what his premises allow, in that the creating agent is greater than the universe. Martin notes the example of a parent who creates a child greater than he or she. . Martin further notes that Craig's claim of creation "ex nihilo" is not justified, pointing out additional possibilities besides this.[33]

In his book, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification",[21] Michael Martin states: "Even if the universe has a beginning in time, in the light of recently proposed cosmological theories this beginning may be uncaused. Despite Craig's claim that theories postulating that the universe 'could pop into existence uncaused' are incapable of 'sincere affirmation,' such similar theories are in fact being taken seriously by scientists."[21]

1. Martin is unaware of the inference to unicity present in the primary reference for the KCA. As it is, he claims it is 'non sequitur', a de facto denial that such an inference has been proffered. Its inclusion here is pointless immediately after the article describes the segment of the argument he denies exists.

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not state that the cause is greater than the created universe (a claim that would require some form of ontological argument as addendum). Merely that it is "incredibly powerful". Martin's objection is addressing a straw man and fails the criterion of inclusion by WP:RELEVANCE.

3. Martin asserts the tenability of cosmological theories that posit uncaused beginnings through an inductively valid appeal to authority. Martin is not a cosmologist. Moreover, the quote does not specify which cosmological theories he is referring to. If we are to incorporate cosmological claims without substantive underpinning reasoning in this article, it should be by those with the relevant specialty background. 109.144.145.171 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears an editor is referring to this section on the talk page to support deletion of Martin's passages. Please see WP:TALK which states: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal". The opinion of editors is not relevant at Wikipedia. The only thing we rely on for inclusion of material in the article is whether it meets Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and if it comes from a reliable source. Please take discussion of the article's subject matter to other forums on the Web. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have raised one WP:RS concern and two WP:RELEVANCE concerns. Therefore, this is not "general conversation" about the subject of the article but objective discourse on ways in which to improve its content. We can demonstrate this simply by referencing WP:RS described in your own link (bolded):

1. "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article". Martin is not an authority on cosmology so his statement is not a reliable source. If it is to be a broad opinion without underpinning arguments in the field of pure cosmology (without a metaphysical context, for which he would be qualified), we should refer to the opinion of cosmologists, not philosophers.

2. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Two of the sources do not address the Kalam cosmological argument in the form that it is presented in the article. If they are to be relevant, then the article must be extended to include properly-sourced variants of the KCA relevant to those criticisms. Otherwise they should be removed to conform to the standards described in WP:RS.

If you raise no objections to these concerns, I will be removing those sources. Thanks. 109.144.172.48 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I do object. If we are going to remove Martin's comments, we will need to also remove Craig's comments as Craig is not a cosmologist. Please also read WP:RS, as there are three components to be evaluated, the author, the publisher, and the work itself. You would need to show why the publisher and work itself are not reliable, and you would then need to show that the subject matter of the article is not a matter of philosophy, but pure cosmology—in which again we have a larger problem with including other non-cosmologists. (As an aside, I'd be interested if this subject matter is actually discussed in peer-reviewed journals of cosmology.) Anyway, if we still disagree, we can bring up the matter at the Reliable Source Noticeboard and get further input.

As for your other objection, the passages from Martin are from a portion of his book specifically addressing this topic. If you'd like, that could be noted in the article as well, but I don't think it's necessary. Who is the other author you state is not addressing the KCA directly? Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We've discussed this above. The KCA as described in the article:

1. Does not imply a cause that is "greater" than the universe - whatever "greater" means in the context of his argument.

2. Does not imply that God created the universe ex nihilo.

3. Does specify that we have reasons to believe in the unicity of the first cause.

Unless your references misrepresent Martin's arguments, he is either addressing a variant KCA distinct from that described in the article (in which case those variants should first be incorporated into the article), or is making criticisms not relevant to the primary literature (in which case, they should be relocated to a more appropriate article).

Craig's comments are in the territory of metaphysics (the ontology of "nothing" re. virtual particles, the meta-science of quantum determinism, and the meta-cosmology of a past-incomplete universe) and he has qualified his conclusions with underpinning arguments, whereas Martin's comments do not. It is a basic appeal to the authority in a field he has no training in, without any substantiation. One way around this is to elaborate on Martin's quote and include metaphysical details to make his claim more substantive and appropriate. I might get a hold of the relevant reference and do this myself when I have time.109.144.167.194 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I see. Some of your points are fair. I think that what is missing is a clearer identification of Craig's assertion that the cause is "greater" than the universe, and his assertion that God created the universe ex nihilo. Below is what Martin states in his book:

• "Craig in one place goes further than assuming a personal agent and claims that 'our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it'" (Martin 104). Martin attributed this to Craig on page 149 of his 1979 book The Kalam Cosmological Argument. I'd have to get a copy of that book first, but we can include that additional assertion in the article.
• "Craig also claims to have shown that the universe was created ex nihilo" (Martin 104). Martin attributed this to the same page of Craig's same work. Again, we can add that to the article since it is part of the argument that Craig is making (and again, I'll need to get a copy of Craig's book to state it correctly).

Finally, I understand your concerns about Martin's qualifications. I believe most of what Martin is discussing remains in the traditional philosophical realm, but I understand your concern. Therefore, I'll address your tag in the article on "scientists" and list the ones that Martin is citing. Let me know if I have not fully addressed your concerns. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've found both references and it looks like Martin's commentary on the KCA is fairly simple. His criticism of creatio ex nihilo simply denies the finitude of the past, meaning that it is annulled by the commentary in situ. The problem, therefore, is where to place it without making Martin look unscholarly. His criticism about cause being greater than the universe seems to be of the type that may be addressed in one of Craig's "worst ever objections to the KCA" commentaries. I'll ponder both problems when I have time later.109.144.181.103 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure both Craig and Martin's writings are clearer and flow better by themselves apart from this article. In Martin's case, his comments are pulled out, and split into various places in this article. The entire article needs serious work, as it doesn't flow very well or present a coherent piece according to Wikipedia's Featured Article criterion 1a at a minimum (besides the noted conflation of two separate ideas, ancient and modern). I just don't have time to devote to it. Yet there is some value in people placing properly sourced information in the article even if it becomes less coherent overall. There are many articles where someone takes an interest and, given enough information to work with, turns it into a Good Article or Featured Article. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The main problem in incorporating Martin's arguments is that he is responding to an old (1979) description of the argument; one that was pre-BGV theorem, one that didn't spell out the reasons for unicity of the first cause or creatio ex nihilo (by which we are actually talking about the absence of a material cause) and in which the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinites was not as fully elaborated. As it stands, his objections, though valid at the time they were written, are somewhat outdated inasmuch as they are already addressed by the latest (BCNT) description of the argument from which the bulk of the article is derived. In order to reflect this, short of deleting Martin's commentary altogether, I've reorganised the text as follows:

1. Added Craig's allusion to creatio ex nihilo within the first description of the argument.

2. Where relevant, Martin's criticisms are made specific to Craig's 1979 book and positioned before the more modern descriptions of the KCA that respond to them or address them.

3. Incorporated the reference text (describing Martin's reference to quantum fluctuation models and his objections to creatio ex nihilo) into the body of the article proper, representing the salient points.

A loose end that remains is the placement of Martin's objection concerning actual infinities. I will try to do this later.86.187.149.207 (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with most of the above although I haven't re-read the text. I am more concerned that you appear to continue to delete Martin's passage that is noted at the bottom of the talk page. If you disagree with its location, please bring that up on the talk page. The material is properly sourced and had consensus through editing. At Wikipedia, we follow the WP:BRD rule, which means if you are bold and remove it, and someone else reverts that, you don't just go back and delete again. We discuss on the talk page and come to a new consensus with other editors if needed. Through your continued deletion of these passages without establishing a consensus for deleting them, I will warn you that you are going to be soon, if not already (I haven't counted), in violation of Wikipedia's rule on edit warring, and the three revert rule. I am not going to revert it if you delete it again without discussion. I'll simply report your actions to an admin and ask for action, which usually involves a warning and a short block to editing for the first time. However, you can avoid that by establishing a new consensus to delete these passages through discussion instead, which is likely to get better results. If you'd like to do that, please do it at the thread at the bottom. Thanks.

"I haven't re-read the text" - Then please actually read the article before you commit changes and make accusations.

The information in question was not deleted but moved to the correct section under "The Quantum Vacuum" under the statement "Philosopher Michael Martin has also referred to quantum vacuum fluctuation models to support the idea of a universe with uncaused beginnings." This incorporates information both in the referent text and in the quote insofar as it specifies what type of cosmological theories he is referring to. Given that we already have an implicit agreement that Martin's commentary should be reorganised within the framework of the article, I am not sure why you now insist that this should be subject to consensus polling. Unless you give clear indication that you have retracted your agreement, this is simply following through on your own recommendations.

It's up to you if you insist on adding needless bloat to the article by effectively repeating propositions within the space of a single paragraph. However, it should at least be placed next to the prose text that refers to it.31.55.86.21 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

All right. I don't mind apologizing for that as I overspoke. Next time, please respond if someone comments on an edit you make. I did so twice below (bottom of talk page) and you did not respond. However, I'll admit I did not see the relocated paraphrase (I did scan the article, but did not see the reworded passage), so that's my fault.

Having said that, I would prefer to retain the quote or at least paraphrase it to identify that Martin is specifically rebutting one of Craig's claims. Martin's statement referring to uncaused beginnings is relevant to that section in general, but it doesn't identify that Martin made that statement in juxtaposition to a specific claim related to the topic at hand.

On a separate note, please be careful about using a neutral tone when editing. Using words which paints one side as "complaining" or making unfounded claims is against Wikipedia's policy and paints a particular point of view. It is also important in articles like this to simply present the ideas on each side according to their weight without presenting one side as the overall "winner" (unless the weight of scholarly opinion is clear that there is one). Besides, WP:NPOV, I can also recommend you review the criteria for Good Articles and Featured Articles. If an edit moves closer to these models, it's an improvement here. The opposite is, well—not. You might even consider improving this article and then nominating it as a Good Article.

Also, I recommend that you join Wikipedia as a registered user. You are now editing under multiple different IP addresses. This makes it hard for others to know if it is one or multiple editors. Also, if you edit here at Wikipedia with multiple accounts, you open yourself to a charge of sock puppetry. Having an account with a talk page also lets users let you know if you are going astray from Wikipedia's guidelines and allows you to collaborate with other editors.

Some of the reason for me noting the above is that you appear to be a new editor and the above guidelines and policies will be of use. I am only at Wikipedia sporadically and thus don't usually get deeply involved in articles anymore. If you are interested and have the time, your efforts to improve this article, within Wikipedia's policies, are welcome and your efforts are appreciated. If you have questions, feel free to ask an admin, ask for help at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, or even ask on my talk page.

Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are public IPs, probably used by thousands of different individuals, meaning that I have no control over them. I'll consider registering an account if time permits.

Secondly, I did not mark you out to be "complaining" or try to portray you in that way. If my choice of words has been inappropriate then I apologise, but it was unintentional.

I absolutely agree that a balanced discourse is essential to the article meeting scholarly standards, and I can understand why an editor would want a discourse like Martin's as a counterposition to the Craig-centric article. This does look very much like an article that is biased in favour of the defense. Unfortunately, the problem in trying to achieve balance is - Craig himself. Regardless of whether one agrees with the soundness of his arguments or not, anyone surveying the literature would note that he has responded to scholarly criticisms with exhaustive rigorousness and has simply given no quarter for his critics to retreat to. If the article reads like it gives Craig the last word on every issue of contention, it is because Craig (as per his inimitable debate style) has gone to great lengths to make it so.31.55.115.241 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Notablility and scope issues

This may well be notable, but the article as it stood clearly tried to "borrow" notablility from medieval philosophy. The term and concept of a "Kalam cosmological argument" is due to Craig and originates in the 1990s. THis is to be disambiguated from "the cosmological argument in the Ilm al-Kalam tradition".

Confusingly, the medieval topic was called "the Kalam cosmological argument" in the 1950s, and Craig has apparently borrowed the term from there. There is still a clear difference between discussing the medieval argument and proposing your own "Kalam cosmological argument" loosely inspired by medieval tradition. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's even worse than I thought. This article appears to have originated as a discussion of medieval theology, and was later "Craigified" so to speak and now hoplessly mixes the contemporary "atheism" controversy with discussion of medieval theology. It doesn't help that in the modern anglophone debate "Kalam" apparently has come to be used as a shorthand for "cosmological argument". This is of course misleading. "Kalam" means "rational discourse" in general, so "Kalam cosmological argument" more or less translates to "cosmological argument argument". Kalam is controversial in Islam not beacause the specifics of the cosmological argument are controversial, but because it is controversial whether there should be rational debate to begin with. The mainstream position in Islam is that it is sinful or blasphemous to even try to talk about theology. Kalam simply refers to that part of Islamic doctrine which is willing to have a discussion about the existence of God in the first place, something that is generally assumed as a given in western discussions without further reflection.

Now, it seems rather childish to cite contemporary popular authors on atheism who "criticise" or "refute" an argument from medieval theology. In order to even discuss such topics with any credibility, you first need to be an expert on medieval thought, in this case medieval Islamic theology, and then discuss the argument within its actual context.

On the other hand, if Craig (or anyone else) presents an argument "inspired" by something from Kalam for contemporary consumption, it is of course fair game to criticize that in contemporary terms. The only problem is that this article hopelessly conflates the two topics. --dab (𒁳) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

terminological problems

Ok, I think I see what is going on here. The Kalām Cosmological Argument is the title of a 1979 book by Craig. In origin, Craig refers to the medieval argument and gives an exposition of his own understanding and interpretations. Henceforward, Kalam Cosmological Argument became a kind of proper noun that ceased to have any direct reference to medieval Islamic thought. It is even abbreviated KCA and it always refers to Craig and his opinions.

Since the 2000s, Craig's argument seems to have crept into the "Intelligent Design" debate and it is now a proper noun referring to a thing in the arsenal of creationist apologetics and is discussed almost entirely within that context.

Now, on Wikipedia, people begin to research the term Kalam and try to re-establish a direct connection to medieval theology. It is of course childish to discuss medieval "proofs of God" by reference to quantum indeterminacy or modern cosmology, as the point of such medieval "proofs" was not convincing atheists or arguing for the existence of God against agnostic scientism, their point was to meditate on the nature of one's conception of God, in order to arrive at a better understanding of what was admitted to be beyond human understanding from the outset.

So de-facto and under WP:UCN, "KCA" is a matter of the modern debate between theism and atheism and it is completely detached from medieval thought. The article should reflect this. This goes even so far that some people "abbreviate" the term to "the Kalam argument", which is of course nonsense. The thing is called "the cosmological argument", and the Kalam was only put there by Craig to say he was giving special attention to the development of the cosmological argument in early Islamic theology. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I figured it out now

The reason for the topical overlap between this page and cosmological argument is due to the increasinly sloppy use of Craig's term "kalam cosmological argument" in popular debate. Craig uses the term specifically for the point involving actual infinites (and their impossibility). The remainder of the debate, including all stuff on causality, Big Bang cosmology and what have you, is not particular to the kalam type of argument and would belong in the general discussion of the cosmological argument.

But it may be that "kalam" has acquired the secondary meaning of "the opinions of Craig", so it may be that all criticism or defense of Craig's opnion in particular now (validly? de facto?) belongs under this heading. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. After all, I'd guess that the vast majority of people who've come across the Kalam, did so as a consequence of one of Craig's debate circuses circuits. William Lane Craig has been pushing his cosmological argument under the heading of "Kalam" for about 2 or 3 decades by now.

Mojowiha (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic label

Is it unclear to me why an off-topic label was added for Barker's passages. He is clearly talking about this subject of this article. Perhaps another label was intended? Also, the invisible explanation added in the text points to an apparent dichotomy between two ideas in the article. But inclusion of Barker's material does not rely on an adjudication of other ideas within the article. That discussion can happen separately. If there is no further explanation regarding the "off topic" piece in a few days, I'll remove the tag. Airborne84 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Barker is a layman in the philosophical realm. No proponent of the argument believes that God is the only possible candidate for "not beginning to exist" or that God is an "actual infinity" in the mathematical sense. I propose that his additions be deleted from the article.--TMD (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Barker states that he relied on Michael Martin for these passages, who is not a layman in philosophical terms. As for your second sentence, the discussion of whether or not God is the only candidate for "not beginning to exist" is simply part of the logical discussion of the argument which Barker (and Martin) assert results in a logical fallacy. As another editor supported the inclusion in an earlier discussion, a consensus change is necessary to remove the material. Airborne84 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparent rebuttals to Barker's commentary

I integrated some text that was added after Barker's commentary into one main paragraph. It's fair to include contrasting material, to an extent, to something like this or it may appear to some readers that Craig hasn't addressed an area that he might have. But we need to be careful here. For example, if each section of the article ends with Craig, and appears to be repeatedly concluding "here is why all the objections above don't matter," the article will merit a POV tag as more of an essay than an encyclopedia article.

Next, Barker's note about the wording of the first premise is focused on the words begins to. He notes this as an addition to the older cosmological argument that "Everything that exists has a cause". The origin of Craig's first premise as drawn from the original version of the cosmological argument is not apparently relevant then regarding Barker's comment, and leads to a WP:SYNTH problem. However, I didn't remove the entry about the origin of Craig's premise as it is still encyclopedic. I moved it to the section on premise 1.

Finally, the third sentence already exists elsewhere in the article. It does not need to be listed twice. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

POV Tag

I added a POV tag to the article. I am not going to get into an edit war with the IP who is editing the article, so I'll simply leave the comments at the end of Barker's section that she/he changed again. Integrating conflicting but related passages together and listing Craig's positions only once in the article is movement toward NPOV.

What we have now is very close to an essay, if it's not there already. Specifically, Craig's positions are repeated in slightly modified forms through the article now. And POV wording like "moreover" in the final rebuttal gives the clear appearance that someone is arguing a case. The biggest issue is that what appears to be rebuttals by Craig appears at the end of most sections.

These issues will need to be addressed regarding the POV tag. For more information on how to address this see, WP:POV and WP:NOT#ESSAY. Airborne84 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What a retarded tag. How is this arguing a case when it's just relying on the fact that Craig is the principal proponent of this argument?

The page on the movie "An Inconveniant Truth" probably contains a lo of responses to it from Al Gore, that's because he's the principal propnent of it. This is just wikipedia's overweening obcession with being unbiased run amok.MJH92 (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

After some passages where dissenting ideas are listed, Craig's material is listed in "rebuttal style". Craig's position only needs to be stated once. Airborne84 (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that some time during late 2012 or early 2013, this article began to be primarily about William Lane Craig's cosmological argument, which he calls the Kalam. During last six months there also seems to be a tendency for various IP addresses to pop in and edit this article (and only this article) to make Craig's conclusions appear unassailable by variously:

- rewording to have Craig "defending" or "demonstrating", while his opponents are merely "arguing" or "claiming",

- removing criticism of Craig by, for instance, labelling Alan Guth's objection to Craig's use of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem a "personal opinion" of Guth's,

- inserting links that appears to wholeheartedly back Craig's interpretations, but whose conclusions turn out to be less categorical (e.g. the Vilenkin "quote" I've mentioned in an earlier talk section),

- tagging on Craig's objections to the criticism, but never any subsequent criticism of these objections of Craig's.

The article now basically gives the impression that Craig has refuted all criticism and no hint of the rather problematic issue that, for instance, Craig's objections to the physicists who've criticised him basically rests on preferring Craig's interpretation of physics over those of actual physicists. Indeed, the very volume of criticism is indicative not only of the fact that Craig has been using the same argument(s) for decades, but also of the sheer amount of problems with the Kalam.

I'm wondering whether semi-protecting the article might help alleviate this kind of re-editing to favour Craig. If nothing else, it would at least allow a genuine dialogue about this article's format and wording when edits are made. Generally, having looked at some of the old (2012'ish) versions of the article, I actually prefer those briefer ones, albeit with a somewhat enlarged section on Craig, seeing as his version is likely to be the main reason why contemporary people come across the phrase "Kalam cosmological argument".

Mojowiha (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotecting may be OK. I don't mind IP editors making additions from reliable sources, even if they appear to favor Craig. It just means that there needs to be a further effort to provide a balanced treatment according to WP:Weight at some point. On the other hand, when the editing actually moves the article toward POV, such as some of the recent editing, that is unproductive when viewed in light of Wikipedia's policies.

Another solution would be to cut most of the pro et contra William Lane Craig stuff from this article and dump it in the article dedicated to his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument, replace it with a condensed summary à la "among the best known contemporary advocates for the The Kalām is William Lane Craig" or something to that effect and then simply add a "See also" at the end and a "Were you looking for" at the beginning with links to that article. Mojowiha (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a possibility and it's reasonable to offer that to other editors for discussion. It would entail much of the material here being moved to that article. The drawback is that the non-Craig/modern argument material in this article is sparse. The article would then essentially comprise only the current "history" section in the current version. That is OK, of course. It's fine to have a stub or start-class article which others can expand on.

Regarding where to move the Craig/modern material in this article, I see two choices: (1) move it to the article on Craig's book of the same name, or (2) move it to a third separate article. The reason for the latter is that critiques of Craig's arguments may occur outside of the scope of his book, and the critiques are not of the book, but of the ideas themselves. Yet, if this logic appears valid for three articles, it may be best to consider carefully whether that is an improvement over combining the old and new versions of the argument with the same name as is currently done here. I am OK with leaving as is. I won't object to a split, however. Airborne84 (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that creating yet a third article would be too confusing. Instead, I think that adding a section on with subsequent debate/response to Craig's Kalam in the article on his book would be better. Simply put, Craig is still making the same arguments as back when he published The Kalām Cosmological Argument in 1979. The only things he seems to have added are various statements from physicists which he thinks are compatible with the original argument (particularly its premises), as well as his "Neo-Lorenzian" defence of the A-theory of time he needs to make the Kalam work at all. Craig hasn't really changed his core argument at all for the 35 years he has been using it, even if he has added some frills as to why he still thinks it's a good argument. That's why I think it's a sensible solution to dump all the later response to Craig's Kalam in the article on his book. Mojowiha (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Refutation

From a philosophical point of view, ignoring physics and quantum mechanics the argument is interesting because of the human intuition that there is a reason why any collection of things are as they are, external from collection of things themselves. Starting with this position by applying induction this is clearly impossible.

What is deeply troubling troubling is that the negation of this statement is that collections of things do not need a reason to exist. Why aren't pink elephants popping into existence all the time if they do not need a reason to exist?

However adding a removing God has no effect on the argument.

The weaker argument is that everything that exists in time has a cause, and that things that are outside time do not need a cause. This premise seems inherently arbitrary, self serving and unsatisfactory. But taking it at face value, the Kalam argument can still be refuted.

Objects within the space time continuum need a cause because they exist in time. But consider the space time continuum as a whole. It is not within its own time dimension. It has a time dimension as part of it, but it is not within its own space time continuum.

Then either it exists in another time dimension, or it is timeless. If timeless it does not need a cause from the premise. If it is within a time dimension the argument may be applied inductively.

Therefore the space time continuum does not need a cause. Therefore the existence of the space time continuum and everything within it does not require the existence of a God to explain its existence.

Thepigdog (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the article. Quantum physics doesn't give us something from nothing, but something from something else. The argument you just gave (that things need a cause only if they exist within the space time continuum) is your own opinion, which is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article.--TMD Talk Page. 20:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. At the talk page we focus on improving the article through the use of reliable sources. Please use other forums for discussion about the topic itself. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The argument is sound. The only point is that you would need a reference to such a refutation/argument (not your own argument, but published work), so I agree we can not just add that just based on the argument alone. Can you provide a valid reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.heusdens (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Readding criticism of Craig's position

I readded some passages from Michael Martin (a reliable source) that were properly sourced, but removed for reasons that appear to be personal objections to Martin's ideas. Please discuss here before removing properly sourced material from reliable sources, especially on articles where there are likely biases involved on both sides and collective edits like this which push the article toward one point of view simultaneously move the article away from Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View.

Regarding the edit on Martin's passage that was stated to be vague and without detail, we can certainly list Martin's objections. When I added the passages, I thought paraphrasing them was best since it would have added a lot of wording to the paragraph to list Martin's notes on this. But I can certainly add the details, in the main text or in a footnote if it gets too wordy. (For that matter, so can other editors.) Summarily deleting the passage is not the best way to go based on the NPOV concern I noted above. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Need clarification on opening of Historical background

The opening of the Historical background section currently reads:

The Kalam cosmological argument is based on the concept of the prime-mover, introduced by Aristotle, and entered early Christian or Neoplatonist philosophy in Late Antiquity, being developed by John Philoponus.

I'm wondering if that's the intended meaning or if it actually should be:

The Kalam cosmological argument is based on the concept of the prime-mover, introduced by Aristotle and which entered early Christian or Neoplatonist philosophy in Late Antiquity, being developed by John Philoponus.

In other words, exactly what is being said to have "entered early Christian thought ... in Late Antiquity"? The Kalam CG itself, or the concept of the prime mover? If it's the former, the sentence doesn't need changed. But then the next sentence could do with fixing because it is referring to "the concept" (i.e. of the prime mover). Sleety Dribble (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Continued deletion of Martin material

I've reverted the deletion of passages by Martin again. This time the editor deleted the material under the rationale of "cleanup". I see the tag, and it's fine to discuss splitting the historical and modern ideas apart. However, deleting a properly sourced response from a WP:RS to the modern argument of Craig, while leaving Craig's modern argument in the article, is not "cleanup". It's introducing POV into the article.

If we are going to move the modern ideas into a separate article, it all needs to move versus deleting passages from one side of the debate. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

new section

@Airborne84:I intend to create new section on kalam cosmological argument in Islamic philosophy.--m,sharaf (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good! --Airborne84 (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Continued deletion of Martin material, again

The continued deletion of properly sourced material from Martin is getting tiresome. One significant revision to the article (which another editor reverted because of a formatting issue) reworked some of the material in the article, but deleted outright (again) the below paragraph from Martin.

In his book, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, Michael Martin states: "Even if the universe has a beginning in time, in the light of recently proposed cosmological theories this beginning may be uncaused. Despite Craig's claim that theories postulating that the universe 'could pop into existence uncaused' are incapable of 'sincere affirmation,' such similar theories are in fact being taken seriously by scientists"

Please discuss before deleting properly sourced material from Martin, or any of the sources in the article. I could explain again why, but if an explanation is needed, please see above. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No information has been deleted. It was relocated to a more appropriate section in accordance with a pre-existing agreement that the article should be re-organised. Please actually read the article ("...I haven't re-read the article") and talk page (the deletions prior to this were discussed here) to avoid making unfounded claims and needlessly creating new subsections here. Thank you.31.55.127.252 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Reversion of the article to July 11 version

I've reverted that article back to the version last edited by Anthony Appleyard on July 11, before the recent set of edit wars. I think this is much more coherent than the recent forms the article has taken, and is probably a better place to build again from, rather than the thrashed-about versions we've seen in recent weeks. -- The Anome (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. I added some reference material in an endnote since an IP editor added a tag because of its lack. Other than that, I'll leave it as is.

This is the summary of the situation as it stands.

1. Martin commentary deleted, with rationale (not relevant to the article, as per WP:RS).

2. Deletions reverted by Airborne84 with instructions to discuss on talk page.

3. Topic discussed on talk page with objections outlined (subsection: "Michael Martin")

4. After a week without any objections raised, Martin's commentary removed.

5. Deletions reverted again by Airborne84 and talk page dialogue opened.

6. Consensus achieved to include Martin's commentary, but to reorganise it.

7. Contents reorganised as per consensus, some information in quotes incorporated into main text.

8. Airborne84 duplicates quote information, mistakenly believing it to be deleted.

As such, it is not an edit war, but a misunderstanding, and would not qualify for the 24 hour 3 revert rule. If you have no objections I will be undoing your reversion. Sorry if this is misconstrued.31.55.115.241 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think @The Anome is overly concerned about our discussion on that specific Martin passage. I'd discuss further with him/her before re-reverting as I'm ok with leaving it here and moving forward from here as well. (That's not to say it can't be improved; it can.) --Airborne84 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I will add in the changes that we have agreed upon. Namely, reorganising Martin's contribution to the discourse. Without that, the problem remains of Martin's arguments not corresponding to the KCA as presented in the article. Tell me if you think otherwise.31.55.115.241 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Trivial Refutation

Just come across this complete nonsense, POV, article clearly written by a disciple of thy holiness Craig. If in the event axioms 1, 2 were true, and 3 of the basic argument followed, it is trivially obvious that this would in no way imply that a personal, necessarily *conscious* by definition creator was the cause. One simply postulates that some inanimate, non conscious extra-existential physical process of extra-existential mass-energy, that has ALWAYS existed generated this universe. It is quite impossible to conclude from the Kalam assumptions that any "creator" must be conscious. Without consciousness, no god. Period. Indeed, a problem with an evolutionary explanation of sentient beings is that it is not clear exactly what advantage consciousness actually achieves. Behavior still appears to be explainable without the necessity of awareness at all. I may have a go at updating the article on the matter, but I don't have the time to get into endless reverts.

A second fundamental, fatal flaw is the assumption that in a completly empty universe, that mass-energy can not spontaneously appear. It is only laws of physics that "prevent" actions happening. For example, limit to velocities to that of light, conservation of energy and so forth. However, laws of physical are simply relations and definitions between mass-energy. With no mass-energy, there are no laws of physics. Period. An empty universe therefore has no constraints as to its behavior. The question that is to be asked is, "what prevents mass energy spontaneously appearing in an empty universe", not "what creates mass energy".

Kevin Aylward 20:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. If you have sources which discuss the subject, please incorporate them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Vilenkin and the BGV theorem

Please note the policies on Evaluating Sources WP:EVAL:

1. Where secondary sources (other physicists' interpretation of the BGV theorem) contradict the primary source (the author's own thesis), the primary source should take priority.
2. Passages should not be taken out of context in a way that changes their meaning. The full correspondence between Vilenkin and Stenger is shown in the link below. The section that was omitted clearly changes the proposition of the quotation when included.

Source: http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/william-lane-craigs-arguments-for-god.html KJ12 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, this is not other physicists' interpretation, this is a direct quote of Vilenkin. Secondly, the context doesn't change the meaning. As a compromise, I may include the short quote from Vilenkin's letter with a broader citation in the reference.

In your last edit, the first quote is actually from the same lecture as the 2012 lecture in which he concludes "all the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning", so it obviously can't be used to disprove that statement. The second quote is from the same exchange of emails as the Stenger-Vilenkin discussion that was just deleted, in which he goes on to verify the WP:reliable source that you're trying to refute.

Unless you can think of a way to avoid these contradictions, they should be removed under WP:cherrypicking.217.38.82.182 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, "all the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning" does not refute "universe probably has a beginning", because we may get evidence in future that says the opposite. However, if there is a contradiction, two positions should be clearly written to avoid WP:cherrypicking. Otherwise, it should be deleted. As for the email, I see no ground to regard it as unreliable according to WP:Identifying_reliable_sources. If you see any reason listed in WP:Identifying_reliable_sources, please specify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmtrij FAE (talk • contribs) 08:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Quote-mining a lecture slide to make Vilenkin appear as if he changes his mind halfway through a lecture is clearly cherry-picking. The word "probably" is simply to do with the truism that science doesn't deal with certainties. The article doesn't really need weasel wording to point out truisms like this.

The email exchange from which your second quote is taken from concludes with Vilenkin affirming his theorem. The quote itself is to do with particles that may exist infinitely into the past, but are "infinitely rare". It's clear that he meant this hypothetically.

If you want to include it as a disproof of his theorem, you would be claiming that he changes his mind twice in the course of his discussion with Stenger, has rejected the theorem that he wrote and disavows his conclusion from the SOTU lecture. This would carry an impossible burden of proof and would fail the context policy of wikipedia: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."217.38.84.49 (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some advice regarding your recent edits:

1. Sources must refer to the causal premise the way it is presented in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Using sources that discuss causality in a general context or other versions of the cosmological argument would count as WP:original research

2. A non-peer reviewed blog post by an undergraduate in philosophy lacking any editorial oversight would count as a source of WP:QUESTIONABLE reliability.

3. You've also reintroduced the WP:cherrypicked quote from the Stenger-Vilenkin correspondence, which we've discussed above.217.38.81.83 (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop editing the article in such biased way. I have noticed a lot of misrepresentations on your part (esp. in relation to Mackie, Oppy and Vilenkin). You absolutely misrepresent the sources, take for instance Mackie. The only reason I don't delete this stuff is a lack of time. When (if) I have it, I will critically review them Dmtrij FAE (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to accuse others of misrepresenting sources when you admit that you've not bothered to check them. Mackie's appeal to Hume's perceivability criterion is on p.85 of his book. His other argument based on the problem of induction doesn't apply here because the first premise isn't defended inductively.217.38.89.39 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said I hadn't checked the sources. I have read all the sources you are trying to use. You misrepresent even my words. Give an exact quote from Mackie.Dmtrij FAE (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Mackie on Hume: "As Hume pointed out, we can certainly conceive an uncaused beginning-to-be of an object; if what we can thus conceive is nevertheless in some way impossible, this still requires to be shown."

You can find Reichenbach's critique of Mackie here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#3.4

I've undone your last reversion because you have yet to demonstrate why the recent edits are biased, apparently don't have access to the sources, and are clearly acting without assuming good faith. I suggest a consensus be reached on the talk page first. 217.38.89.39 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A warning I'm obliged to give here: If you make one more reversion of the recent changes without establishing a talk page consensus, you will be in breach of the 3-revert rule on edit-warring, which will require administrator intervention.

Below are my criticisms of the version of the article you want to protect. If you are unable to address these criticisms, and cannot provide cogent evidence that later edits misrepresent their sources, I will undo your reversion:

1. WP:CITE: Numerous sources cited improperly or vaguely, without following rudimentary referencing standards: "Bruce Reichenbach. Cosmological Argument", "Wes Morriston. Causes and Beginnings in the Kalam Argument", "Graham Oppy.Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological Argument".
2. WP:QUESTIONABLE sources and WP:UNSOURCED claims: Francois Tremblay's article is a blogosphere entry without editorial oversight or peer review. The author also doesn't seem to have any formal qualifications in philosophy. No source is cited for the statement that "some philosophers claim premise one contains the fallacy of composition".
3. WP:GOODREFS/WP:NOR: Reichenbach does not state or imply that "the causal principle in premise one is not obvious". He presents arguments for and against the causal principle, including his own thesis supporting it. His commentary on quantum indeterminism doesn't imply this either. Instead, it distinguishes causation from 'predictability'. Editing in a proposition or conclusion not stated directly within the source counts as original research, which is disallowed.
4. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: Mackie's problem of induction regarding causality only applies to versions of the cosmological argument that defend the causal principle inductively. The version in this article defends it axiomatically, not inductively. Likewise, Guth's statement on the beginning of the universe applies to a theoretical model for a fractal multiverse, not the universe of the real world relevant to the article. Policy states that sources must be appropriate to the context of the article.
5. WP:VAGUE or unsubstantive entry regarding Stenger-Vilenkin correspondence, in contradiction to the instructions in the manual of style. 217.38.89.39 (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply or any indication that you plan to respond to this request for consensus, I've tried my best to reconcile both versions of the article.

I've restored a number of quotes that were reduced to paraphrase in the last version, and tried to incorporate them while keeping bloat to a minimum.

I've also tried my best to restore Mackie's argument that you want to preserve. The only way to make it relevant to the article is to put more emphasis on Craig's inductive defense of P1, which he seldom uses. I don't think it's viable to leave the article in the form that you want it, given that that version falls too far short of scholarly standards, notably WP:verifiability. Tell me what you think.

Of note: The article, at this stage, needs an overhaul of the references and citations, which are a mess. 217.38.83.223 (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Dawkins quote

Should we really include the argument from Dawkins? He's not a philosopher and it shows. The quote is quite long on the page, mostly being a summary of Aquinas, but the substance of it is facile, resting upon a bald assertion of the invalidity of a prime mover, followed by another bald assertion about a prime mover not needing *any* of the properties of God (!). Here it is for convenience:

Richard Dawkins stated in The God Delusion when referring to cosmological argument's "The five ‘proofs’ asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don’t prove anything, and are easily—though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence—exposed as vacuous. The first three are just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be considered together. All involve an infinite regress —the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.

1. The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.

2. The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.

3. The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.

All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts." [2]

··gracefool 💬 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Dawkins pretty much just echoes or references Aristotle and Agrippa the Skeptic on infinite regresses here. There's nothing bad to the argument simply because Dawkins puts it into modern, everyday language. --2003:71:4F4B:6341:9D19:EB09:25D5:3B6 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

My recent revert

I inadvertently pressed enter while editing the edit summary. Instead of making a null edit I'll complete it here: the edit I reverted also altered a quote. —PaleoNeonate – 08:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Improvements that need to be made to this article

Hi, I am interested in bringing this article up to GA-status. To achieve this, I think the article needs to describe the argument in more depth, and have more varied inline citations. If someone with expertise in this subject could edit this article to help get the necessary citations in place as well as display the argument more clearly in the article, it would be of great help. I have tried to edit the lede to summarize the argument.--HalMartin (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What I feel should be improved in this article

Robynthehode told me if I disagreed with my edits not being an improvement to take them to the talk page. I feel like the lede should summarize the kalam cosmological argument. I've also heard Dr. Craig talk about the argument "having theological significance" I feel like this should be in the article too, alas I can't find the source for that statement.--HalMartin (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page. I also think the lede needs some work to conform to MOS:LEAD but the number of edits you did in a row made it hard to agree to or revert just one or two. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article but doesn't need to repeat the detail that the article goes into on the subject. Maybe we can both suggest changes here first then make them if we agree. I can't see that the reference of 'having theological significance' needs to be in the lede and if in the article it will need context and a citation. Robynthehode (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the quick response. Second of all, I agree that the lede "needs some work to conform to MOS:LEAD". I think that it should give a formal presentation of the argument, and some more background info on its history. That way, the history section wouldn't stray from the topic of the article, plus, Dr. Craig has talked about the history of this argument when he presents it.--HalMartin (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article so singularly focused on the opinions of William Lane Craig?

The Kalaam is an ancient argument with numerous counterapologetics and defenses that date back for centuries. Why is this article so heavily weighted on William Lane Craig? And why are no counterapologetics included in the article? It seems very one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.246.28.117 (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Swarms of Craig fans cause both. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree there should be more coverage of how other people through history have tackled this argument. I've tried to add some hyperlinks (as I note under the heading below this section) to try and make clear how this ancient argument was developed. As far as criticism, I agree, more could be added. Kant is not discussed, for example.--Phil of rel (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Kalam" just means "discourse". "The discourse cosmological argument" is meaningless, and it is obvious nonsense to say "the Kalaam is an ancient argument". The reason the term "the kalam cosmological argument" exists in the first place is that it is the title of Craig's book. The term has no existence outside of this book and its reception. Medieval Islamic scholastic theology was also known as ilm al-kalam, and if you know this, you can understand the title of the book, i.e. "the cosmological argument taken from the ilm al-kalam tradition". People later misunderstood the title to imply that the argument itself was somehow called "kalam". The "ancient argument" already has its own page, at Unmoved mover. The medieval school of thought has its own page, at Kalam. The 1979 book has its own page, at The Kalām Cosmological Argument. So I would very much like to have explained, preferably based on an understanding on terminology as laid out above, what exactly the scope of this article is supposed to be. --dab (𒁳) 04:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to add a little more info in the "Historical background" section

I hope we can start to remove the box saying that the section may stray from the topic of the article. I believe people will now be able to see more clearly where current philosophy gets this argument from.--Phil of rel (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Distinction between metaphysical impossibility and logical impossibility

As far as I understand it, Craig argues that actual infinities are only metaphysically impossible. Therefore I find it strange that someone is cited claiming they are logically possible. It doesn't really address the claim, which is that infinity is impossible in the real world. Ever since Naming and Necessity by Saul Kripke, there has been a distinction between what is metaphysically possible and what is logically possible.--Phil of rel (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"Cosmological argument in Islamic philosophy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cosmological argument in Islamic philosophy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Cosmological argument in Islamic philosophy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Change the picture

This argument was not invented by William Lane Carig. He should not be the first image, it should be al-Gazhali (if he is the person who is agreed upon as the inventor of the Kalam). 85.255.234.178 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The article explains this. It’s a ‘’modern’’ formulation combining historic ideas with present day cosmology and physics. The historic ideas date back at least to Philoponus. Craig is very much the main author of the argument in its current form, even if some of the ideas were contributed by philosophers through history. The term “Kalam cosmological argument” is also coined by Craig.212.241.216.6 (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@212.241.216.6 Then perhaps we could use an image or diagram/chart of how the argument works. Tying the co concept to an individual seems unnecessarily narrow. 89.240.153.251 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Many of these cosmological arguments such as by Leibniz or Duns Scotus borrow concepts from each other and from earlier philosophers. Yet they’re named after the chief authors who collate and formulate these ideas in new ways. Leibniz for example derived the concept of contingency from Aquinas, who developed the idea from Aristotle’s work, then married it with the principle of sufficient reason to formulate the Leibnizian cosmological argument. Yet he is still credited as the author of that formulation. The same applies here. Craig took ideas from earlier authors, added his own, introduced modern scientific perspectives then reformulated all these concepts into the current argument. If anything, given the considerable amount of scholarly literature defending the KCA - which are effectively sub-arguments nested within the form of main argument - and the scope of the modern formulation, he is more deserving than Leibniz or Scotus of being credited as a ‘main author’. 212.241.216.6 (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)