My Kalām Krash

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the Universe has a cause of its existence.

This is the Kalām Cosmological Argument for the existence of God — the favourite argument of William Lane Craig. It boils down to "The Universe had to be created by something, ergo, God." The KCA is also related to the argument that out of nothing, nothing comes. So let's look at the KCA a bit more (don't worry, this won't take long, and it doesn't involve any multiverses).

The current cosmological consensus is that the Universe began with the Big Bang, at which both space and time came into being. The essential part of the KCA is the notion of "cause". We know that causes always come before effects, because if cause and effect are simultaneous it's impossible to distinguish between the two. To put this another way, both the cause and the effect, if simultaneous, can be said to have come about spontaneously.

The notion of "before" is dependent on the notion of "time". At the Big Bang there was no time, therefore the common understanding of cause and effect cannot hold. Where the traditional relationship between cause and effect does not apply, the claim that effects depend on causes is no longer supportable. One cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility of the Big Bang arising from nothing, spontaneously — without a cause.

The first premise of the KCA needs to be revised:

1. Everything that begins to exist (except the Universe) has a cause of its existence.

Fixed.

Creation — a bad move?

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle Six firmly believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they called The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.¹

As creation myths go, that's pretty ridiculous, but compare it to this (more or less random) alternative:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.²

It then goes on a bit, tending to lose its way regarding the logical order of events, but we can cut it some slack as it's a myth. But the point of contrasting these two accounts of how things got started is to show that neither is more likely or more convincing than the other. It's possible to pick holes in both stories: the first one, for instance, simply states the creation of the Universe as bald fact — this is not exactly explanatory. The second example does exactly the same: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It just happened. It was done, by this character called "God" who is simply assumed to be there without any sort of explanation of who he was or where he came from.

Both examples may yield some insight from the application of literary criticism — but as explanations of how things came to be, they are equally misleading and uninformative. If you're seeking an explanation that correlates with reality, I suggest you look elsewhere.

---

1. The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (original radio scripts), Douglas Adams, London 1985, Pan Books, p 90, "Fit the Fifth"
2. The Bible, Authorised King James Version, "Genesis" chapter 1, verses 1-5

Kalām: a semantic game of tag

As arguments for the existence of God go, the Kalām Cosmological Argument is a favourite of Christian apologetics:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

This, according to Wikipedia, is William Lane Craig's version. You have to admit that 4. is a remarkable show of confidence — brazenly stating that the cause is the God of Classical Theism. Why is the cause the God of Classical Theism? Because the God of Classical Theism chose to create the universe. So there!

But the main problem with the Kalām, as I see it, is premise 2. "The universe began to exist." What do we mean by "universe"? Do we mean everything, ever? If so, then "everything" must include all the supernatural entities that might possibly exist — in which case God began to exist, and therefore must, according to this argument, have a cause himself.

That's what the Kalām is designed to avoid, by claiming that everything — or "whatever" to use Craig's phrasing — that began to exist has a cause. It's only things that had a beginning that need to have a cause. It doesn't apply to God, because God has always been there, despite Craig's frequent claim that there's a problem with an infinite past. (Basically his argument goes like this: if there's an infinite past, then there must have been an infinite number of past events, so anything that existed in an infinite past must have undergone an infinite series of past events to get to the present day, which is impossible. Except for God, naturally, because he lives "outside time" in the land of special pleading.)

Clearly a definition of "universe" that encompasses everything, ever (including any gods), is incoherent when talking about causes, because the causes must be included in "everything" as well. If our definition is instead the whole of material reality that originated in the Big Bang, we're on firmer ground. But to say that the universe originated in the Big Bang does not necessarily imply that there was nothing "before" it. In as much as "before" can mean anything at all at the point of time and space coming into being, we have a problem: if there's no concept of time, the notion of causality is indeterminate, because causes necessarily precede effects. It's because of our concept of time that we're able to distinguish between effects and their causes. Without time, cause and effect are at best interchangeable, at worst nonsensical.

The Big Bang — the origin of the universe — can be better conceptualized as a point of transition. A transition from what, we have no way of knowing. Another universe in the Multiverse perhaps, or in one of those other dimensions postulated by string theory, or even from some similarly unknown realm of cyclic reversal. What we can say, however, is that the universe as we know it did not necessarily have a beginning before which there was nothing. Indeed the concept of "nothing" may itself be incoherent (which would, incidentally, make redundant the question of why there is something rather than nothing).

So the Kalām is no more than a disingenuous rephrasing of the premises in such a way as to counter the obvious response. What caused the universe? God did. So what caused God? Ah, God doesn't need a cause because (despite the aforementioned paradox of infinities) he never began. Well, the universe as we currently understand it doesn't need a cause either, because it too doesn't need to have had a beginning.

When I was a teenager the Steady State theory still held ground against the more controversial Big Bang theory. I remember Arthur C. Clarke being questioned about this on a radio phone-in show. His response was delightfully equivocal: "I favour the Steady Bang theory, which I give to you for free."

Everything and Nothing — Professor Jim Al-Khalili

We've had Professor Brian Cox's latest wondrous TV series ogling different aspects of the universe — and very splendid it was too. But I'd like to recommend a shorter and perhaps more focussed series recently broadcast on BBC Four. This was Professor Jim Al-Khalili's two-parter Everything and Nothing.

Two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are - what is everything, and what is nothing?

In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.

The first part, Everything, sees Professor Al-Khalili set out to discover what the universe might actually look like. The journey takes him from the distant past to the boundaries of the known universe. Along the way he charts the remarkable stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos and investigates how our understanding of space has been shaped by both mathematics and astronomy.

The second part, Nothing, explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question - what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it.

Available on iPlayer for a limited time:

Everything:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yb59m/Everything_and_Nothing_Everything/

Nothing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zwndy/Everything_and_Nothing_Nothing/

For those beyond the reach of iPlayer, both programmes are available on YouTube (but expect them to be pulled soon):

Everything — Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psHPx4YezdE

Everything — Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQEHOuokWV8
Everything — Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4biSl7Fu04
Everything — Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDGxRrSkdNU

Nothing — Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiIaJ0hacwc

Nothing — Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45-XOBzoO-Y
Nothing — Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiWpb_v26dc
Nothing — Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWPzhQFL17w

In the words of Sir Arthur Eddington, "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

The universe is so vast, let's all just kill ourselves

Over at Telegraph Blogs Brendan O'Neill has got himself into a tizzy about how important he may or may not be in the grand scheme of things. Not that he says such in so many words, but his misapprehension of one of TV's current popular science hits betrays his discomfiture with reality:

I think I have solved one of the great mysteries of the universe: the question of why mop-topped stargazer Professor Brian Cox is so popular. It isn’t because of his looks, or his soft Mancunian voice, or his pop past in Blair-boosting band D:Ream. No, it’s because his wide-eyed cosmology is based on a view of mankind as insignificant, as a mere speck of dust in the post-Big Bang scheme of things, and that chimes brilliantly with today’s rather downbeat view of humanity. The floppy-fringed professor massages the fashionable prejudice that humanity isn’t all that special; no, we’re just a cosmological accident, which will exist only fleetingly before being wiped out by the explosion of our Sun or some other cataclysmic event.

Sorry Brendan but that's just how it is. Get used to it.

The point is, Brendan, that we are special — just not in the way you think we are. The universe was not designed with us in mind (actually it wasn't designed at all, as far as we can tell — but that's probably another blogpost or two ... or a thousand). Nevertheless we are here, and that is one awesome fact.

And what have you got against Carl Sagan?

Like Sagan, Cox and his rationalistic acolytes in the media are attracted to the cosmos primarily because they believe its vastness reveals our smallness, that its 14 billion-year history puts our pathetic 250,000 years of inventing fire and skyscrapers and iPads into perspective. They see in the never-ending chasm of space, not worlds we should aspire to know and possibly conquer and colonise, but a big black challenge to the idea of human historic purpose.

There you go again: purpose. Imputing teleology is for those who can't cope with the way things actually are. As for conquering, that's a bit presumptuous isn't it? Maybe that's the human historic purpose you're talking about — humanity's cosmic crusade: to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no crusader has gone before, and subjugate the alien masses.

Copernicus’s challenge to the idea that the Earth was the centre of the universe was frequently cited by Sagan and his fans as a challenge to the idea that human beings are the centre of the universe – but it was no such thing. Rather, Copernicus wanted to increase human authority over the unknowns of the universe, not teach mankind a lesson about our “insignificance in the great loneliness of space”. In contrast, today’s cod-Copernicans in the Cox lobby are drawn to the cosmos because its weirdness and bigness feeds their drab, down-to-earth belief that there isn’t much point to life.

You've got it upside-down and backwards. As for "their drab, down-to-earth belief that there isn’t much point to life" — I'll let you into a little secret: life is what you make it. The point of life is life itself.

Does the Universe have a purpose? — a debate in Puebla, Mexico

This debate was part of the International Festival of Great Minds conference that took place in November 2010, at BUAP Benemerita Universidad Autónoma De Puebla on the theme of “The Origins of the Future — A Life Experience: Rebirth.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8


Notable for its fortuitous placing of Richard Dawkins against William Lane Craig — an opposition that Dawkins has hitherto vocally declined — this debate had probably the weirdest format I've ever seen. The participants gave their speeches in a boxing ring!

On the "No" side (the universe does not have a purpose) were Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins, and on the "Yes" side were Douglas Geivett, David Wolpe and William Lane Craig. Michio Kaku provided a kind of commentary towards the end, declaring both sides wrong.

Craig doesn't change; his style of debate doesn't vary from one event to another. As usual he restated the motion, declaring what his side believes, and (in a characteristic effort to erect a suitably inflammable straw man) what the other side believes, and stated what the other side must prove, and what his side would show. As usual he shifted the burden of proof, declaring that it was up to the other side to show that the universe does not have a purpose. Pardon me for being stubborn, but if I'm told that something I can't detect is in fact there despite my inability to detect it, I tend not to change my mind about its existence unless shown compelling evidence.

On the contrary (and as expected), Craig took the existence of a purpose to the universe as the default position. He did concede, however, that if God does not exist, then the universe does not have a purpose. Unfortunately for the legitimacy of his argument he took the flip side of that premise to be that if the universe does have a purpose, then the God of Biblical theism exists. For someone who claims to be a philosopher this false dilemma was a disingenuous tactic. In his usual manner Craig also ran through ten arguments for the existence of a Creator in one of his rebuttals, claiming they were persuasive when in fact they were nothing of the kind — all ten have been long since repeatedly refuted, but that doesn't stop him trotting them out on demand.

This particular debate format was bad enough that it tended to limit speeches to superficial point-scoring. The maximum time allowed for the six initial presentations was six minutes each, with subsequent rebuttals at less than two minutes — hardly enough time to refute even one fallacious argument for the existence of a deity, let alone ten.

Whether or not the universe has a purpose, I'm not sure what purpose this debate served. To my biased sensibilities the "No" side won hands down, but the whole affair was less than edifying. One good thing to come out of it, however, was further exposure of William Lane Craig's empty rhetoric.