KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT DEBUNKED? TRY AGAIN!
The Fallacy of Composition:
Because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that same property.
Atheist:
Besides it being a category error and fallacy of composition to try and extend a "law" based on an inductive inference from what we experience about discrete errors objects and events within the universe, we can see that the universe as whole as an object and the Big Bang as an event are different in significant ways that also cast doubt on premise 1 of the Kalam (Everything that begins to exist has a cause).Therefore, there is no good reason to think that the universe must have a cause. Extrapolating from everything within the universe beginning to exist simply being a rearrangement of pre-existing matter to the universe therefore being a rearrangement of pre-existing matter is committing the fallacy of composition.
Everything we are familiar with is an object within a set (the universe). It is a fallacy of composition to assert that the properties of things we are familiar with (objects within the set) are also properties of the set as a whole (the universe).
All small parts of the universe that begin to exist have causes.
Therefore collection of small things that begin to exist and which have causes also has a cause.
All small parts of the universe have causes
Collection of small parts which have causes has cause too. (Fallacy of Composition)
Answer:
The argument of the atheist stems primarily from lack of understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Before we refute his argument, we must let the readers know that the fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy and what that means is the "context" of the argument is more important.For example:
1) Because the atoms of a penny are not visible to the naked eye, then the penny itself must also not be visible to the naked eye. (Fallacy Of Composition).
2)Because all of the parts of an elephant are light and easy to carry, then the elephant itself must also be light and easy to carry. (Fallacy of Composition).3) Each part of an airplane has the property of being unable to fly. Therefore the airplane has the property of being unable to fly. (Fallacy of Composition).
4) Because the atoms of a penny have mass, then the penny itself must have mass. (Not a fallacy of Composition)
5)Because all of the components of this car are entirely white, then the car itself must also be entirely white. (Not a fallacy of Composition).
According to Atheist, the following argument commits fallacy of composition:
1)All small parts of the universe that begin to exist have causes.
2)Therefore collection of small things that begin to exist and which have causes also has a cause.
Based on Atheist's definition of the universe:
The universe = collection of all small parts which began to exist.
Defining terms: "Beginning to exist" means "something leaving the realm of non-existence and entering the realm of existence."
1) All small parts of the universe began to exist i.e. they were non-existent before and entered the realm of existence.
2) The universe= collection of all small parts.
3)Therefore the universe began to exist i.e contingent.
4) And whatever begins to exist requires a cause.
If the atheist contests the premise (3) ask him " What is a universe without all of its parts?" And it is within your right to accuse him for "changing his definition of the universe". Since all of its parts began to exist and were non-existent before, therefore it is absurd to claim that universe was existent or present before its parts ever began to exist because the universe cannot be anything other than the collection of all of its parts. A better answer would be "Since the atheists holds the premise true that all parts of the universe began to exist and he also holds the definition of the universe which is "collection" of all of its parts, true therefore it is absurd to claim that the universe is not contingent when all of its parts are contingent. Therefore, atheist's attempt to label the argument a composition fallacy is adequately refuted.
Atheist:
The term "Beginning to exist" as you defined is not what we see within the universe.Everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff.
Fallacy of Equivocation:
In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the
use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an
argument leading to a false conclusion.
Kalam also equivocates on the first premise when it refers to everything that "begins to exist". Presumably this premise is referring to everything around us on this planet--everything in your house, everything on the streets, everything we see in the cosmos. However all of these things did not "begin to exist" in the same sense theists are claiming the universe "began to exist" (creation ex nihilo). According to the laws of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and everything we are familiar with is a actually reconfiguration of preexisting matter than has been around for billions of years. The atoms that comprise people, places, and planets do not "come into existence" in the same sense Kalam is claiming the universe came into existence (matter appearing from a previous state of non-being/non-existence). Rather they have always existed in some form, and the objects we see around us are merely the latest rearrangements of those atoms. So in speaking of the universe requiring a "cause" for it's existence, Kalam is not referring to it as you would an automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or mountains being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates (also made of atoms which have been around since the big bang), but of something being caused by creation ex nihilo, which is not at all the type of creation we are familiar with in every other circumstance. Kalam therefore is using a word game to equivocate between the behavior of matter and the origin of matter. This is an equivocation between wildly different things.
In summary: Kalam proponents believe God made the universe exist ex nihilo. But everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff. Since the universe is literally the only example of something truly "beginning to exist" from a previous state of nothingness, this means there is a sample set of one in this category, leaving no inductive support for the premise that "whatever begins to exist (ex nihilo) has a cause".
Once the argument is reformulated to take into account the hidden premises, it looks like this:
- Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
- The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
- Therefore the universe has a cause.
- Every X has a cause.
- The universe Y.
- Therefore the universe has a cause.
Answer:
Before we begin our refutation of atheist's argument, we must address some points pertaining to things that leave the realm of non-existence and enter the realm of existence (Began to exist) and their requirement for a cause.Whenever something comes into existence or begins to exist, the following claims can be made about its existence.
1) It was necessary: Clearly this is self-contradictory because whatever begins to exist by definition cannot be said to be necessary, else it would have been existent since eternity past and moments ago we agreed that something began to exist.
2)It was impossible: Clearly this is self-contradictory because something began to exist. To say that it was impossible is to deny that something came into existence (began to exist) and moments ago we agreed that something began to exist.
3)It was possible: Since it wasn't necessary (else it would have been necessary since eternity past and it wouldn't have begun to exist) and it wasn't impossible (else it wouldn't have begun to exist), it must be merely possible in existence. What does possible in existence entail?
There was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would have been necessary) neither its nature required non-existence (else it would have been impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect to the very nature of the event i.e intrinsic to itself. Equal in what sense? None is preponderant over the other.
Now when such an event begins to exist from prior non-existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say the event occured causelessly because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed that such an event was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) and niether it required non-existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal. Now when you claim that the first event occured causlessly, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence? (This absurdity is known as Preponerance without a preferror).
Note: The necessary truth of the proposition has been proven rationally.This can no longer be contested by any empirical evidence, or scientific observation. Rather, if one presents anything along these lines to contest the universal application of the proposition, the reply will be simple: obviously, the most such an observation can show us is the lack of an observable cause. It does not solve the contradiction we highlighted just now.
Indeed, at this point, the opponent must refute our argument mentioned in the main article, and then present the scientific finding. He must do both in order to contest our premise. Atheists usually present fluctuations in quantum mechanics as proof for their claim that "Not everything that begins to exist has a cause" to dispel the Kalam argument.
However, they can't dispel it for three reasons
1)Kalam Argument doesnot advocate a contingent cause.
2)Absence of a contingent cause (in a scientific finding such as quantum fluctuations) has no bearing on the premises of Kalam argument for the reason mentioned in (1).
3) The premise "Not everything that begins to exist must have a cause" or "Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’ has been proven to be false due to the absurdity "Now when you claim that the thing occurred without a cause, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence?"Based on the above, we can say that if the pattern of quarks truly have no observable correlating event that makes it predictable, and is thus labeled “random,” it is either because Allah has not willed for it to have a correlating event, or because He has not willed for it to be discovered.
The atheist thinks that merely labelling an argument an "Equivocation fallacy" makes it so.
Any thing that begins to exist by definition means that the thing entered the realm of existence from prior non-existence. The atheist is trying to build a side-track and a red-herring. This however stems primarily from lack of understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
He thinks exploiting difference between "rearrangement of pre-existing matter" and the "creation of the universe from nothing" has any bearing on the Kalam proof. Based on his thinking that since everything we see around us doesn't simply pop into existence (creation ex-nihilo) and the Universe does therefore the argument commits fallacy of Equivocation.
He is wrong for the following reasons.
1) The "rearrangement" that takes place within pre-existing matter, is called a change and it is essentially a beginning. This change is something that began to exist. Therefore it can be said that this change was non-existent before and then it came into existence. All we are concerned with is that a "change of state (Read: Rearrangement)" took place. This change could be anything that "began to exist." So we ask the atheist what is the difference between
"re-arrangement" of pre-existing matter (Something that began to exist) and creation of the universe (Something that began to exist) in terms of requiring a cause?
Since any change is essentially a beginning and "it is something that began to exist" and the creation of the universe is also "something that began to exist." What difference does it make in terms of requiring a cause?
In fact the coming into existence of a universe "from nothing" or the change in the "pre-existing" matter both are something that are "possible" in existence. By possible we mean:
They weren't necessary (else it would have been existent since eternity past and it wouldn't have begun to exist) and it wasn't impossible (else it wouldn't have begun to exist), it must be merely possible in existence. What does possible in existence entail? There was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would have been necessary) neither its nature required non-existence (else it would have been impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect to the very nature of the event. Equal in what sense? None is preponderant over the other.
Note: Consider an example for instance where I raise my hand from my lap. Previously the hand was resting on my lap. A question to the atheist: Did the movement of my hand began to exist? By "Beginning to exist" we mean this particular movement was previously non-existent and then it began to exist (when i raised my my hand). If the atheist chooses to call this movement as "rearrangement" of pre-existing matter even then it doesn't change the fact that the particular movement or re-arrangement came into existence from prior non-existence i.e. the hand did move. Similar is the case with universe that came into existence from prior non-existence.
Therefore, rearrangement/change (in a pre-existing matter ) was non-existent before and then came into existence, therefore it began to exist.
The universe was non-existent before and then it came into existence therefore it began to exist.
Since both of them began to exist, both require a cause.
Now when such an event begins to exist from prior non-existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say the event occured causelessly because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed that such an event was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) and niether it required non-existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal. Now when you claim that the first event occured causlessly, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence? (This absurdity is known as Preponerance without a preferror).
Why can't the nature of the cause be contingent?
To claim that the cause, which resulted in the coming into existence of the universe or rearrangement in the pre-existing matter, was of the very same nature as the universe or rearrangement, namely something which itself began to exist, is not possible, because positing this necessitates that the universe remained in the realm of non-existence and the rearrangement in the pre-existing matter never took place.
If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within space time [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That would be a contradiction in terms. If it ends, it can never be infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end. You would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of beginnings and endings. This is like a car, if it needs to move from A to B, and the condition for its reaching its destination happens to be the concluding of its wheels rotating an infinite amount of times — in such a scenario for it to reach its destination is clearly impossible, since you would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of rotations. Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur.
Note: To exploit the difference between rearrangement of pre-existing matter and the creation (ex-nihilo) of the universe was a side track and a red herring. As it has been made quite clear already, that whatever begins to exist ("Re-arrangement"in the pre-existing matter or the coming into existence of a universe out of nothing) requires a cause that is not contingent. We ask the atheist isn't the premise of the Kalam cosmological argument sufficient enough to understand when it says "Everything that begins to exist require a cause." The side-track was "How different things begin to exist?" and this is not relevant to the Kalam argument.
The entire argument of the atheist is a diversion tactics and an attempt to divert the readers attention from "everything that begins to exist has a cause" to "How different things begin to exist?". This is not what the Kalam cosmological argument in question deals with, because it is irrelavant as far as things beginning to exist and requiring a cause is concerned.Mereological Nihilism: is the view that there are no composite objects. It is important that we address this before moving forward. Some atheists attack the premise "Everything that begins to exist must have cause" by making a claim "Nothing ever begins to exist. It is simply a rearrangement of pre-existing matter or matter that was always existent." That is to say all that exists is a mere rearrangement of matter that always existed. So in fact, there are no cars, chairs, horses,dogs or people. Therefore his denial of "things began to exist" isn't an affirmation that the atheist always existed but it is the acceptance of his non-existence i.e. he never began to exist in the first place. This is an extreme form of relativism or sophistry, where a person claims to doubt everything, even sometimes his or her own existence. Since they thereby doubt the existence of proofs, arguing with them is a useless activity. Instead, they are handled by putting them in a situation where they are forced to admit the certain existence of sensory reality. An example of how this can be done, is saying to them, “I will not discuss anything with you until you admit that you are certain that we are speaking to one another.” A slightly harsher way is to throw some cold water in their face, and when they complain say, “you mean the water you are not certain exists thrown in the face you are not certain exists by a person you are not certain exists?” A more simpler methodology is to ask the atheist "Do you believe the "rearrangement" in the pre-existing matter took place i.e the rearrangement began to exist?" If he denies this, then his whole proposition falls apart namely "all that exists is a mere rearrangement of matter that always existed and nothing ever begins to exist" because it is a contradiction of terms. (Holding "nothing ever begins to exist" and "Rearrangement began to exist" to be true at the same time leads to a contradiction).
2) The atheist said "Kalam is not referring to it as you would an automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or mountains being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates (also made of atoms which have been around since the big bang), but of something being caused by creation ex nihilo"He also said "Everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff."
Let's go back to basics. If something exists, the following can be said about its existence.
1) It is necessary: Always existent/Eternal. Its very nature requires it to exist.
2)It is possible (with respect to itself): Contingent beings.
3)It is impossible.
On one hand the atheist says "made of atoms which have been around since the big bang" which makes these atoms contingent i.e. they began to exist from prior non-existence at the time of occurrence of the big bang and on the other hand he states "rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff." This is a contradiction of terms because atoms cannot be "Contingent (possible in existence with respect to themselves) and Necessary (always existent or eternal) at the same time.
Why is it a contradiction:
1) Because if the matter is deemed necessary or eternal, the mind absolutely does not accept its non-existence.
To claim that a matter was necessary in existence (eternal or always existent) and then it changed (rearranged or entertained a beginning in existence) is contradiction of terms because how can the matter be necessary in existence (It's very nature requires it to exist) and possible in existence with respect to itself ( there is nothing in its nature that prefers non-existence and there is nothing in its nature that requires existence)?
2) Re-arrangement produces a change in the matter. Any change is essentially a beginning and all beginnings requires a cause. How can the matter that is necessary in existence requires a cause? The very definition of necessary existent is that it is not dependent on any thing and if it is requiring a cause then it isn't necessary in existence to begin with. This makes it merely contingent or possible in existence.
3) The uncreated or necessary matter was subject to change (re-arrangement). This means that a change of state took place within the existence of the eternal matter. Consider an example of a pancake maker.
If one observes a pancake maker change its state from “not making pancakes” to that of “making pancakes” then he must have moved from point A in time to point B in time. It is patently absurd to think that at point A in time he was both “not making pancakes” and “making pancakes.” How can one be in two mutually contradictory states at the same point in time? Likewise, it is absurd to think that the pancake maker is eternal or necessary in existence because it is subject to changes (beginnings). Any change of state is essentially a non-existence of previous state (Not making pancakes) and existence of a the new state (making pancakes). How does something that is necessary in existence entertains non-existence of a state at one point in time and entertains existence of another state at another point in time? Either the said "change" didn't take place or the existence of a thing which is subject to changes isn't necessary to begin with. It is merely possible.
4) The matter is said to be eternal. So it is impossible than any change could occur within the matter. Because by definition any change is a beginning. To claim that the "eternal" matter changed (on account of leading to existence the first event) then this would necessarily mean that infinity came to end or Something that had no beginning (always existent) has a beginning and this is a contradiction.
5) Last but not least, in attempt to confuse, or out of confusion some may ask: “What if the existence of matter is cyclical?” Our answer to this is that cycles are still one cycle one after another, so they are events. Some may also ask, in an attempt to confuse: “What if the matter is eternal in the sense that it transforms into one form or the other. It never gets destroyed and neither it is created?"
We say this leads to the absurdity that is "contingents without a first." What the atheist is trying to say is that the existence of the matter is cyclical i.e. It has continued to transform in one or another forms since eternity. This absurd from two point of views.
1) It is impossible that there are infinite number of changes taking place within the matter since eternity past, in other words it is ABSURD to claim that a particular change in pre-existing matter can only take place after an infinite number of changes in the past have completed. It is absurd because infinity does not end.
Those who claim that the matter is merely shifting forms or transforming since eternity are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes the particular change in the pre-existing matter MUST have a Limit i.e. a series of events before a series of events is an event, and what we have proven is that there must be an event with no prior event, regardless of the number of series. Now atheist may confuse by saying " rearrangements taking place in the eternal matter had a limit but the matter didn't" and this leads to the absurdity mentioned in (1) (2) (3) and (4). This proves without a doubt that holding onto the premises "The matter is Eternal and it changed or rearranged" and "The existence of matter is cyclical that is transforming since eternity past" leads to an absurdity, and therefore by rational necessity the MATTER must be Possible in existence/contingent.
Note: An atheist might say "According to current knowledge energy (which is what matter consists of) cannot be created nor destroyed. The energy that exists in this universe is, as far as we know, permanent: It doesn't change. Nothing of it can be destroyed, nor can it be created. The only thing that can happen is for the energy to change from one state to another, but the total amount is always preserved." Our Response is: What we have highlighted previously can no longer be contested by any empirical evidence, or scientific observation. Rather, if one presents anything along these lines to contest the universal application of the proposition, the reply will be simple: obviously, the most such an observation can show us is the lack of any "New Matter" being brought into existence within the universe . It does not solve the contradiction we highlighted just now i.e. Contingents without a first. To claim that the law is talking about that matter or energy within the universe and calling it uncreated or necessary in existence, leads to the same absurdities highlighted previously. There must be an event that has no prior event in order to remove this absurdity from the equation and what that means is accepting the fact that the matter came into existence (ex-nihilo) at some point.
Indeed, at this point, the opponent must refute our argument mentioned in the main article, and then present the scientific finding. He must do both in order to contest our premise. It is finally a failure to think logically, for how would a scientific experiment show with certainty that the existence of matter is cyclical, uncreated and merely shifting forms since eternity past when observing this would take an infinite amount of time? If the law is talking about "No new matter being brought into existence" then this is not a problem because then we can simply say it is either because Allah has not willed for it to exist, or because He has not willed for it to be discovered and similar is the case pertaining to its (matter's) destruction. None of this has any bearing on the Kalam cosmological argument so we ask the atheist "What has he gained?"
The second reason why claiming “What if the matter is eternal in the sense that it transforms into one form or the other. It never gets destroyed and neither it is created?" leads to an absurdity is:Atheist assumes that "rearrangement" of pre-existing matter was caused by the pre-existing matter itself. He said "An automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or mountains being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates"
Doesn't he know that the Kalam scholars do not attribute effects to contingent causes? Doesn't he know that the Kalam cosmological argument is rejecting the notion that cause of re-arrangement is a contingent cause (namely the pre-existing matter itself)?
Note: The atheist will offer the following propositions:
#1 Rearrangement of pre-existing matter caused by rearrangement of pre-existing matter caused by rearrangement of preexisting matter this continues till infinity.
If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within space time [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That would be a contradiction in terms. If it ends, it can never be infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end. You would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of beginnings and endings. This is like a car, if it needs to move from A to B, and the condition for its reaching its destination happens to be the concluding of its wheels rotating an infinite amount of times — in such a scenario for it to reach its destination is clearly impossible, since you would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of rotations. Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur.
Note: As for the observable causality which we see between fire burning and water quenching thirst and other events of this nature, we maintain that these are not the true reasons why things begin to exist. So, if one attributes the movement of my hand to immediately preceding organs, tissues and skeletal muscles, while attributing these earlier movements to the flow of blood and neurological phenomena– if one claims that these are the only reasons why things begin to exist, we will place the soldiers in front of them and ask for a reply. Does that mean we Muslims deny empirical observation and deny that there this is any correlation between these events? No. Not at all. We say, there is a correlation, and that is all it is, a correlation.
#2 Rearrangement of prexisting matter caused by rearrangement of pre-existing matter.(Read: FULL STOP).
Here the atheist maintains an abrupt cut off point.
This leads to the absurdity because "what" caused the rearrangement of pre-existing matter is itself requiring a cause.
In his attempt to ward off regress he decided to entertain an abrupt cut-off point:
If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled.
Coming back to the atheist's claim "the Kalam Cosmological Argument comitts Fallacy of Equivocation."
Where does the universe and the pre-existing matter fall according to the judgments of intellect and Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Necessary: Always existent, or existent since eternity past. The mind absolutely does not accept its non-existence or a change in its existence. Niether the universe or the pre-existing matter fall under this category.
Impossible: The mind absolutely does not accept its existence. Neither the universe or the pre-existing matter fall under this category because impossible things don't happen.
Possible: The mind accepts its existence or non-existence. Contingent beings fall under this category. Therefore the universe as well as the pre-existing matter fall under this category.
So does the argument commit fallacy of "Equivocation"? Yes but only in the mind of an atheist.
Comments
Post a Comment