Skip to content

Course 14 · Lesson 4.4

Objections and replies, and what follows about the cause

10 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 14 outline

Module 1: Arguments, Existence and Necessity

  1. What natural theology attempts and what it does not
  2. Necessary and contingent existence
  3. How to read and test an argument for God
  4. Philosophy of religion today: a map of the field

Module 2: The Ontological Argument

  1. Anselm and the argument of the Proslogion
  2. Gaunilo and the perfect island objection
  3. Kant: existence is not a real predicate
  4. What the ontological argument would show if it worked

Module 3: Cosmological Arguments

  1. Aquinas: the first three ways
  2. Infinite regress: what is the problem?
  3. Leibniz, the principle of sufficient reason and the argument from contingency
  4. Objections: the brute fact reply and the fallacy of composition

Module 4: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  1. The kalam tradition: Philoponus, al-Ghazali and Bonaventure
  2. The modern argument: whatever begins to exist has a cause
  3. Did the universe begin? Philosophy and cosmology
  4. Objections and replies, and what follows about the cause

Module 5: Teleological and Fine-Tuning Arguments

  1. From Aquinas’s fifth way to Paley’s watch
  2. Hume and the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
  3. Darwin and the change in the design argument
  4. The fine-tuning argument: what is claimed and what is debated
  5. The multiverse and other replies

Module 6: The Moral Argument and Divine Hiddenness

  1. The moral argument: Kant, Lewis and contemporary forms
  2. The Euthyphro question and moral realism without God
  3. Evolution and moral knowledge
  4. The argument from divine hiddenness and Christian replies

Module 7: Contemporary Modal Arguments and Evaluation

  1. Possible worlds and modal logic in plain language
  2. Plantinga’s modal ontological argument
  3. Assessing the modal argument: what it needs and what it shows
  4. Weighing the arguments together, and what none of them prove

All courses

Program / Course 14: Arguments for the Existence of God / Lesson 4.4

What you will learn

  • State the main objections to the kalam argument as a whole.
  • Explain Craig’s argument that the cause must be personal.
  • Describe the objections to the step from a cause to a personal creator.
  • Say what the argument would show if both premises were accepted.

The big idea

Even if both premises of the kalam argument are granted, the conclusion is only that the universe has a cause. Defenders then argue that the cause must be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful and personal. Critics reply that the argument for personhood is weaker than the argument for a cause, that a cause of time itself is hard to make sense of, and that the very idea of causing a beginning without a prior time is obscure. The discussion shows where this argument is strong and where it is thin.

Key terms

Personal cause
A cause that is an agent with a mind and will, able to choose to act.
Timeless cause
A cause that exists outside time, at least without the universe, and so did not act at some earlier moment.
Agent causation
The claim that an agent can cause an event by choosing, without a prior event that determines the choice.
Efficient cause
The thing that brings about an effect.
Mereological
Having to do with the relation of parts to wholes.
Parsimony
A preference for the simplest adequate explanation, often called Occam’s razor.

Background

Craig’s defense of the kalam argument includes a further step. If the universe has a cause, and space, time and matter began with it, then the cause is not itself in space, time or matter. It must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial. Craig then says it must be personal, for a reason given by al-Ghazali: if the cause were a mechanical, impersonal sufficient condition, then the effect would exist as long as the cause did, and the universe would be eternal. The only way to get a first effect from an eternal cause is by a free choice.

The step has attracted much criticism, partly because it makes strong claims from few premises and partly because it moves from the general to the specific. Each objection, and its reply, is an instance of the skills this course teaches.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Objections to the whole argument

Three objections apply to the argument generally. First, an argument from a premise about everyday things to a claim about the whole universe may extend a principle beyond its range. Second, the notion of causing a beginning of time seems odd, since a cause normally acts before its effect, and there is no before. Third, even if the universe has a cause, calling the cause God claims much more than the premises show.

Step 2: The reply about timelessness

Defenders reply that the cause can be timeless without the universe and temporal with it. God would be timeless sans creation and enter time at creation. Causation need not be a relation between earlier and later events. A simultaneous cause is possible, as when a ball resting on a cushion causes it to be depressed. Critics reply that such cases are not parallel, and that a timeless being cannot explain a change from no universe to a universe.

Step 3: Why personal?

Craig’s argument is that only a personal agent can produce a new effect from an eternal and unchanging cause by free choice. Critics offer alternatives. The cause might be a physical process in a larger reality, a quantum event, or an impersonal ground. They add that the term person is borrowed from experience of embodied agents, and that it is not clear what an unembodied, timeless agent could be.

Defenders answer that any physical cause would itself be part of the universe or require a further explanation, and that there is no better candidate than a mind for something that does not depend on matter.

Step 4: Parsimony and the multiverse

Skeptics also appeal to simplicity. If a beginning needs a cause, why not a simple natural cause, such as a prior state of a larger physical system? Positing a supernatural mind, they say, adds an entity without need. Defenders reply that any natural cause is within the physical order and so cannot explain the origin of physical reality. The question of what counts as the simplest explanation divides philosophers.

Step 5: What follows if both premises are granted

If both premises were accepted, the argument would establish that the universe has a cause beyond itself. Craig’s further steps carry it to a personal creator. The result would be of great importance, but would remain short of the God of Christianity: it would say nothing of the Trinity, of the incarnation, or of moral character, which depend on other arguments and on revelation. Defenders themselves present it as one step in a cumulative case.

  1. Can an effect begin if its cause has always existed?
  2. Can a cause be timeless and still bring about something in time?
  3. What does it mean to say the cause is personal?
  4. Does the idea of a larger physical reality seem simpler to you than a creator?
  5. If both premises were accepted, what question would still be open?
  6. Which objection do you find most serious?

Examples

The eternal cause problem

Suppose a fire has always been burning. Then the heat it produces has also always existed. If the cause of the universe were always there and acted by necessity, the universe would always have existed. A cause that chooses to begin the effect solves this, the defender says. (A common illustration.)

Simultaneous causation

A ball sits on a cushion and presses it down. The pressing and the depression occur at the same time. Defenders use this to show that a cause need not come before its effect. Critics say this involves ordinary time and so does not match a cause of time itself.

A natural alternative

A physicist proposes that this universe formed from a quantum fluctuation in a prior space. The proposal moves the question back. Defenders say the question of where the prior space came from remains, and critics reply that the same is true of any creator.

Different perspectives

Catholic

Catholic theology teaches that God is the creator of all things, and holds that God is outside time. Catholic philosophers who follow Aquinas find the personal character of the cause in the notion of a will and intellect in God. Some think the kalam route is less secure than the Five Ways.

Orthodox

Orthodox theology teaches creation by the will of God and that God is beyond time. Writers like Gregory of Nyssa speak of creation as an act of divine will and love. The tradition is cautious about proving such matters by argument.

Protestant

Craig, an evangelical, defends the argument in full, and other evangelical philosophers support it. Reformed thinkers who defend creation generally do so on the basis of Scripture. Some Protestant scholars note that a creator established by argument is not yet the Father of Jesus Christ.

Scholarly views

Philosophers like Oppy and Wes Morriston have written detailed replies to Craig, objecting to his claims on infinity, causation and personhood. Craig has replied in turn. The exchange is regarded as among the best in the field.

Skeptical views

Skeptics hold that the argument at best shows a cause of the universe, and that nothing supports calling it a mind. They also say a cause of time makes no sense, and that science is the right place to look for the answer.

Why it matters

The kalam argument is often used in public debate, so a student should be able to say exactly what it claims and what it leaves unclaimed. This lesson trains that discipline: grant the premises, state the conclusion, and see how far it goes.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: If the kalam argument works, Christianity is proved.

Correction: It would show a cause of the universe, perhaps personal. The Trinity, the Incarnation and the resurrection require other evidence.

Misunderstanding: Critics say the universe came from nothing.

Correction: Critics offer several alternatives: an eternal universe, a prior physical state, or a brute beginning. Few say it came from nothing.

Misunderstanding: The cause must have existed before the universe in time.

Correction: If time began with the universe, the cause is not earlier in time. The sense in which it is prior is a matter of explanation, not of time.

Misunderstanding: A personal cause is obviously the only option.

Correction: It is a conclusion Craig argues for, and critics accept alternatives. The argument for personhood is more disputed than the argument for a cause.

Knowledge check

Why does Craig say the cause of the universe must be personal?

He argues that an eternal cause that acts by necessity would produce an eternal effect, so the universe would always have existed. To explain a first effect from an eternal cause requires a free choice, which only an agent can make. So the cause must be a personal agent who chose to create. Critics doubt each step of this reasoning.

How do defenders answer the objection that a cause must precede its effect?

They say a cause need not be earlier in time than its effect. A ball resting on a cushion causes the dent at the same time. If time begins with the universe, the cause is without time, and it is prior in the order of explanation. Critics say these cases do not match the creation of time.

What natural alternatives to a personal cause do critics propose?

They propose that the universe arose from a prior physical state, such as a larger spacetime or a quantum fluctuation, or that there is an eternal multiverse. They also say that the universe might just begin without a cause. Defenders reply that these either require their own explanation or abandon the causal principle.

What would the argument show if both premises were accepted?

It would show that the universe has a cause beyond itself. Defenders add further steps to argue that the cause is timeless, powerful and personal. Even then the result falls short of the Christian God, since nothing has yet been said of the Trinity, the incarnation or the moral character of the creator.

Think it through

  1. Is it natural to think of the cause of the universe as a mind?
  2. What makes an explanation simple?
  3. How should the lack of an earlier time affect talk of causes?
  4. How would you tell the difference between a good argument and a persuasive story?

Independent assignment

Grant the premises

In your own notebook, write 350 to 500 words. Suppose both premises of the kalam argument are true. Write what you think follows about the cause, step by step, and mark each step as strong, weak or unclear. Then write the best objection to your strongest step and the best reply. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study