Majesty of Reason | From Kalam to God? @MajestyofReason | Uploaded June 2023 | Updated October 2024, 8 hours ago.
Must the cause of the universe be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal? No. Here's why.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid
CLARIFICATION
Thanks to commenter Tym Miara for inviting this helpful clarification:
In the video, I argued that we cannot infer from the Kalam alone that the cause is spaceless. I began by using an example: “if, *for instance*, you’re only showing [in stage 1] that the past must be finite…” Using this example, I explained how we can’t then go on to infer that the cause of the beginning of (metric) time is spaceless.
I intended the points I made subsequently — about the epistemic possibility of there being some sort of space in which the first cause resides, etc. — to generalize to *other* ways of defending stage 1 of the Kalam, including the appeals to Big Bang cosmology. I wasn’t intending to impute to Craig the inference from ‘x causes the beginning of time’ to ‘x is therefore spaceless’. My point was, firstly, that *if* we only show in stage 1 that metric time is past-finite, *then* we cannot infer that the first cause(s) thereof is spaceless; and, furthermore, that the point about the epistemic possibility of some space in which the first cause(s) resides is a problem for *other* extant ways of defending stage 1, not just a way of defending stage 1 which only shows that the past must be finite. I used the finite-metric-past defense of stage 1 as an example to introduce the point which I intended to generalize more broadly.
So, then, the clarification is that I wasn't intending to say that Craig takes his spacelessness conclusion to be derived from the finitude of the past, though I can understand if what I said suggests that. I’m here canceling any such implicature, and explaining what I was intending to convey.
My point, instead, is precisely that *none* of the points in Craig's stage 1 case show that the cause is spaceless — even the points pertaining to Big Bang cosmology. They only show, at best, that the cause doesn't exist in the spatial framework of our local spatiotemporal manifold, i.e., the self-contained one that began to expand about 13.8 billion years ago. As I noted in the video, there may be a different space that exists causally prior to the beginning of metric time (and hence causally prior to the beginning of the spatial manifold associated with that metric time) and in which the cause resides. This space may be the same sort of space as our local spatiotemporal manifold's space (e.g., three-dimensional); or it may be some more exotic state space that various philosophers have proposed for the 'location' of the universal wavefunction; or it may be a higher dimensional spatial framework; and so on. The epistemic possibilities are boundless, and Craig — in claiming the cause must be spaceless — illegitimately assumes that none of these are the case. The crucial point is that they straightforwardly undercut the claim that the cause of our local spatiotemporal manifold must be spaceless, i.e., without any space.
And, of course, I think it's important to emphasize that Big Bang cosmology doesn't show that the universe, understood as all of physical reality, began to exist; for more on this, see Dr. Linford's dissertation here :)
philarchive.org/archive/DAN_SA-15
LINKS
(1) The original video from @thoughtology7732: youtube.com/watch?v=JL3Y7QRPp5k
(2) My Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR
(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193121 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid
Must the cause of the universe be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal? No. Here's why.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid
CLARIFICATION
Thanks to commenter Tym Miara for inviting this helpful clarification:
In the video, I argued that we cannot infer from the Kalam alone that the cause is spaceless. I began by using an example: “if, *for instance*, you’re only showing [in stage 1] that the past must be finite…” Using this example, I explained how we can’t then go on to infer that the cause of the beginning of (metric) time is spaceless.
I intended the points I made subsequently — about the epistemic possibility of there being some sort of space in which the first cause resides, etc. — to generalize to *other* ways of defending stage 1 of the Kalam, including the appeals to Big Bang cosmology. I wasn’t intending to impute to Craig the inference from ‘x causes the beginning of time’ to ‘x is therefore spaceless’. My point was, firstly, that *if* we only show in stage 1 that metric time is past-finite, *then* we cannot infer that the first cause(s) thereof is spaceless; and, furthermore, that the point about the epistemic possibility of some space in which the first cause(s) resides is a problem for *other* extant ways of defending stage 1, not just a way of defending stage 1 which only shows that the past must be finite. I used the finite-metric-past defense of stage 1 as an example to introduce the point which I intended to generalize more broadly.
So, then, the clarification is that I wasn't intending to say that Craig takes his spacelessness conclusion to be derived from the finitude of the past, though I can understand if what I said suggests that. I’m here canceling any such implicature, and explaining what I was intending to convey.
My point, instead, is precisely that *none* of the points in Craig's stage 1 case show that the cause is spaceless — even the points pertaining to Big Bang cosmology. They only show, at best, that the cause doesn't exist in the spatial framework of our local spatiotemporal manifold, i.e., the self-contained one that began to expand about 13.8 billion years ago. As I noted in the video, there may be a different space that exists causally prior to the beginning of metric time (and hence causally prior to the beginning of the spatial manifold associated with that metric time) and in which the cause resides. This space may be the same sort of space as our local spatiotemporal manifold's space (e.g., three-dimensional); or it may be some more exotic state space that various philosophers have proposed for the 'location' of the universal wavefunction; or it may be a higher dimensional spatial framework; and so on. The epistemic possibilities are boundless, and Craig — in claiming the cause must be spaceless — illegitimately assumes that none of these are the case. The crucial point is that they straightforwardly undercut the claim that the cause of our local spatiotemporal manifold must be spaceless, i.e., without any space.
And, of course, I think it's important to emphasize that Big Bang cosmology doesn't show that the universe, understood as all of physical reality, began to exist; for more on this, see Dr. Linford's dissertation here :)
philarchive.org/archive/DAN_SA-15
LINKS
(1) The original video from @thoughtology7732: youtube.com/watch?v=JL3Y7QRPp5k
(2) My Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR
(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193121 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid
