The Kalam or any argument for God need to be dealt within a meta- and total basis.
Kant claim it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real in ALL arguments for God which are covered every sphere, i.e.
1. Physical-Theological Arguments - cover the whole empirical world of experience,
2. Cosmological Argument - cover the WHOLE Universe.
3. Ontological Argument - cover the WHOLE of Existence, all existence, i.e. God's existence.
All the above argument for God have a generic structure, they are not sound and infested with fallacies.
The Physical-Theo and Cosmological Arguments has the ontological deceptively hidden within.
In the article;
Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If
the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe [
a being] began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning
....................................................................
4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator
P1.. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.
Craig insisted P1 is self-evident.
This is within Kant's Physical-Theological Argument
But re Hume, it is not.
Hume argued causation is man-made [subjective], so, it follows Craig conclusion is also man-made.
2. The universe [a being] began to exist.
Craig proposed to justify the above with 2 philosophical arguments and 2 scientific arguments. i.e.
1.
Philosophical Argument - Ghazali
1a First Philosophical Arg -no actual infinite No.
1b Second Philosophical Arg – no series actual infinite
2.
Scientific Confirmation
2a First Scientific Confirmation – Big Bang
......Sub-Atomic-Physics
2b Second Scientific Confirm – 2nd Law Thermodynamics
1.
Philosophical Argument - Ghazali
There are two senses of reality,
1. Philosophical Realism sense -[objective mind-independent reality]
2. ANTI-Philosophical_Realism -[objective human related FSK reality]
I have proven 1 is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
Thus whatever is claimed to be finite in the ultimate sense is illusory.
So, P2a and P2b is false.
2.
Scientific Confirmation
There are two views to Science, i.e.
1. Scientific Realism [objective mind-independent reality]
2. Scientific Anti-Realism [objective human related FSK reality]
Scientific Realism is conditioned upon Philosophical Realism which as a above is grounded on an illusion.
Thus Craig's Scientific Confirmations are totally useless.
So Craigs' Cosmological Argument leading from the empirical and experience re Physical-theological is false.
4. which is An Uncaused First Cause as
5. A Personal Being with Freedom of the Will -a Personal Creator
Here the argument take a big leap from the empirical to the transcendent [ontological] which is fallacious. Per ChatGpt [with reservations]
ChatGpt wrote:In the context of the cosmological argument, which often involves reasoning from contingent or empirical phenomena to a necessary or transcendent cause (God), Kant argued that there is a fallacy in assuming that the concepts we apply to the empirical world can be seamlessly extended to the transcendent realm.
The fallacy involved here is not precisely named by Kant, but it is associated with what he considered to be a confusion or misuse of concepts in the transition from the empirical to the transcendent. It's not specifically an equivocation, where a term is used with multiple meanings, but rather a kind of error in trying to apply categories and concepts derived from our experience of the world to something beyond that experience.
Kant's main point was that our cognitive faculties, which are adapted to making sense of the empirical world, cannot legitimately be extended to make claims about transcendent realities. In other words, he believed that certain arguments for God's existence were flawed because they incorrectly applied empirical concepts beyond their legitimate scope.
The fallacy in question, it is associated with his broader critique of attempting to reason about transcendent realities based on empirical concepts.
Here's Bard's [with reservation] Version:
Bard wrote:You are correct in stating that Kant argued against the cosmological argument for God's existence and that it is fallacious to move from the empirical to the transcendent. However, the specific fallacy he identified is not equivocation but rather the fallacy of four terms.
Here's a breakdown:
1. Kant's Argument:
Kant argued that the cosmological argument commits the fallacy of four terms because it uses different meanings for the same terms in its premises and conclusion. Here's the typical format of the cosmological argument:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Kant's criticism focuses on the term "cause." In premise 1, "cause" refers to an observable phenomenon within our experience of the world. We can see and understand how things cause other things in the physical world. However, in the conclusion, "cause" refers to the transcendent God, which is beyond our experience and understanding. This shift in meaning is what makes the argument fallacious.
2. Fallacy of Four Terms:
The fallacy of four terms occurs when an argument uses a term in two different senses in its premises and conclusion. This creates a hidden ambiguity that makes the argument seem valid when it is not. In the cosmological argument, the term "cause" is used in two different senses:
Empirical sense: A cause within the natural world that can be observed and understood.
Transcendental sense: The transcendent God who is beyond our experience and understanding.
This ambiguity allows the argument to appear valid while actually being flawed.
3. Equivocation:
While not the specific fallacy identified by Kant, equivocation can also be relevant to the cosmological argument. Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used with two different, unrelated meanings in the same argument. This can create confusion and mislead the audience.
In the cosmological argument, the term "beginning to exist" could potentially be interpreted in equivocal ways. For example, one might interpret it as referring to the Big Bang, while another might interpret it as referring to the creation of the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). This difference in interpretation could lead to different conclusions about the argument's validity.
4. Conclusion:
Kant's argument against the cosmological argument is significant because it challenges the validity of one of the traditional arguments for God's existence. While the fallacy of four terms is the specific logical flaw he identified, equivocation can also be relevant in understanding the argument's weaknesses.
The debate surrounding the cosmological argument and Kant's critiques continues to be a central topic in philosophy and theology.
