To date, the most impressive defense of the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument that I have seen comes from David Oderberg, who argues that the denial of P1 constitutes a logical contradiction. This is a novel defense, one that I have not seen advocated in any other journal article or book, not even from William Lane Craig himself. Oderberg’s argument is as follows:
In fact, I think one can base an argument for the principle on the even more basic law of noncontradiction. For what does the critic of the causal principle ask us to believe? We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed to include time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something.
– ‘Traversal of the Infinite, the “Big Bang” and the Kalam Cosmological Argument‘, Philosophia Christi 4 (2002): 305-36
Doesn’t there have to be a time for nothing to exist? If there isn’t, then nothing never existed. Elgoog
No, I see no reason why there must be a time for nothing to exist (Nothing includes the absence of time). Tim H
Because it would entail a logical contradiction. If there was no time when it existed, then it never existed. Elgoog
How is that a logical contradiction? You seem to presuppose that a necessary condition for existence is to be within time. This is not an a priori truth, and I see no good reason to believe it. Tim H
How long exactly did nothing exist for? Elgoog
The question itself is incoherent. If nothing exists, then neither does time. Tim H
I just really doesn’t make sense to me… How can it even exist if it didn’t exist for any period of time? Elgoog
I see no incoherence, nothing is supposed to include the absence of time. Tim H
Maybe time is simply a concept, and doesn’t actually exist? because if nothing didn’t exist, keywords, for a period of time. Then it didn’t exist at all. That’s the way I see it, unless of course time is only a concept made by us. Elgoog
Nothingness is not something that can be measured by time. How can I measure something that does not exist? This shouldn’t be that difficult to comprehend… Gil S
Your position (elgoog) is in fact a logical contradiction; “nothing” is not a subject in itself, it is in fact the absence of all subjects. So when you make TIME a requisite for the existence of “nothing” you are saying “in order for nothing to exist, something [time] must exist”. “Nothing” is the absence of everything, including time itself.
It’s not necessarily that time is a concept made by us, more that for time to exist is for something to exist. You cannot treat “nothing” as if it is a concrete subject like “chair” (which WOULD require the presence of time). Lerrrr
That’s exactly why I don’t think nothing can exist, because if it does not exist for a period of time, it never existed. I know what nothing is, but if it doesn’t include time, it doesn’t exist because if never existed for any period of time. I’m not saying that in order for nothing to exist, it must include time. But I’m saying it can’t exist because it can’t include time(or anything). Elgoog
Elgoog, it is a mistake to treat “nothingness” as if it was something. Nothing is a complete lack of existence, and to say that there is a lack of nothing is to say that something does exist. Time is only required of something that has existence, and since nothingness is a lack of something, it also implies that time is not needed. Again, you cannot measure something that is not there. Gil S
That’s my point though, it was never there. So I find it impossible to exist. Elgoog
Hmm, but nothing is not “there”. There’s nowhere for it reside since it is only a mere description. It has no actual being or existence but just describes a total lack of existence. Gil S
But that just reinforces my point… How could God even create from nothing if it didn’t exist? Elgoog
Elgoog;
I think we should draw a distinction between saying that a “thing exists” and saying that a “state of affairs obtains”. When we say “nothing exists” we not actually saying “there is a thing [nothing] which exists”, we are saying “the state of affairs in which nothing exists, obtains”. So for God to create from nothing simply means that there was a state of affairs in which nothing existed (i.e. there was no universe), and he brought that universe into existence.
Another point: I think you are confusing the idea of a thing existing without time, with a thing existing for no time. You made the comment that “if a thing does exist for a period of time, then it does not exist” – but that assumes time as an existential framework to make the point that “a thing existing within time, for no time, never existed”.
We are not saying that “nothing” existed for no time, we are saying that the state of affairs described by nothingness would include the absence of time altogether.
Picture it like this:
Scenario A: We have an empty box. Since the box is empty, it would be false to say “there is a rock inside the box” – because there is no rock occupying space in the box.
Scenario B: There is no box.
Scenario A describes a particular case of existence within a context (the existence of the rock in the context of the box).
Scenario B describes the context itself (the very existence of the box).
Scenario B is the state of nothingness which obtains (rather than possessing concrete existence), whereas Scenario A describes what you seem to be picturing (a thing existing for no time – which would indeed be nonsensical when presupposing a temporal framework). Lerrrr
I get what you’re saying, but I’m not convinced. Perhaps someone can point me to something more in-depth? Although the point you conveyed was clear, I’m still not convinced. Elgoog
Why is it not convincing? You should at least provide reasons for rejecting Lerrrr’s explanation. Gil S
Because I still believe it cannot exist. Elgoog
Out of curiosity, doesn’t the first premise of the KCA state “Whatever begins to exist has a cause (of its existence).”? Why must there be a “prior” state of nothingness before the universe? Can’t the atheist simply state that that something (perhaps time, at least) existed “before” the Big Bang? Midas Vuik
Hi Midas, thanks for the question.
The typical response to this was that time itself began at the big bang. The initial singularity served as the boundary to the space-time manifold, such that there was no prior moment to it. Space and time themselves began at the big bang. Tim H