As I hope to have demonstrated in my last two blog entries the Kalam argument doesn’t hold up. The first premise is fallacious and the second one is very much in doubt. With that in mind let’s concede for the purposes of discussion that the first two premises are true.
What is established by that? It is established that the Universe has a cause for its existence. This is the third premise.
In the fourth premise Apologists argue that this cause must be a timeless, spaceless,immaterial mind.
What? Now that doesn’t follow at all. Of course Apologists believe that the Universe was created ex nihilo but with this fourth premise they deny, without justification, that time, space and matter could exist in some capacity at all sans our Universe.
How do they know this? I’m not arguing for a multiverse here but how could they have possibly aquired this knowledge, that time space and matter can only exist within our Universe?
Let’s ignore that as well however.
What is offered to us here is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial mind.
How do these attributes go together? Every mind that we have ever observed was everything, that this mind is supposedly not: Bound by time, space and matter!
We have never observed anything existing without time, space and matter and I don’t even know what existing without these prerequisits of existence would even look like. It’s like apologists go out of their way to strip God of all traits, that all existence we have ever observed requires, only to go happily on to say that it exists anyways!
We have never observed anything existing without time, space and matter much less a conscious mind with feelings, desires and Intelligence.
Furthermore consciousness is a process. It’s a sequence of changes going on within the brain/mind. Now if were to eliminate time, if we were to stop time in the Universe right now, would we really be conscious anymore? Is it possible, that we can go through a thought process without time? I’d argue that processes do require time or at the very least, that all processes that we have ever observed requires time. If God has thought processes, then how can he exist outside of time or without time? How can God be conscious without time?
As an additional thought I would also like to add that an immaterial God is blatantly Unbiblical. We do find verses in the Bible where God is depicted as having human features for example in Genesis 3 verse 8 where he God was “walking in the garden“. How can God walk in the garden if he doesn’t have feet? How can we be created in his image if he doesn’t have human anatomy? How can any of this (and more) be true if God is immaterial?
Now to my final point: Even if we grant premise 4 it doesn’t lead to the Conclusion, that any deity much less the Christian or Muslim God exists. It simply doesn’t follow!
May it not be the case that this timeless, spaceless entity created the Universe but is only sufficiently powerful to create a Universe but not capable of anything else? Is it not conceivable that this being has no knowledge of anything besides how creating a Universe works? Is it possible that this entity is outright evil?
Would we still refer to this being as a deity? I wouldn’t. Sure everyone can go ahead and call it “God” but this is not how “God” is commonly defined by anyone. Not only does this argument not get us to Jesus or Muhammad, not only does it not get us to Heaven or Hell existing, it doesn’t get us to any form of theism and dependent on you define God it doesn’t even get us to deism even it were sound, which it isn’t.
So in the end the Kalam Cosmological argument isn’t even an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for a first cause of the Universe, that you may or may not call God but since we don’t get any further information of what that entity is, I wouldn’t go so far to even grant that it is worthy of the label.
Goodbye from yours truly,
Rene von Boenninghausen @Renevelation