WLC1: Cosmological Argument (Contingency) - FAIL

In earlier articles, I looked at William Lane Craig’s debating style (in Debatable Theism) and the logic in his “logical” arguments (in The Logic of an Apologist).  In the latter, I said that I would address the content of Craig’s arguments, please check that article if you are not already familiar with the logical forms.  This article addresses what I have numbered as Craig’s First Argument – note that in presenting this argument Craig did not specify with respect to which God was being posited, but he certainly spoke about the being as “God”, not “a God”, so one can reasonably presume that he was talking about the God he believes in.  First a quick recap:

Craig’s First Argument – Cosmological Argument from Contingency
(argued inductively, then presented deductively during Craig-Krauss)

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in its own nature or in an external cause).
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is God.

I had to reword this argument to get it into a logical format, as mentioned elsewhere I don’t think I’ve damaged the argument by doing so, but if I did, let me know.  I don’t think I strengthened it by rewording either, but if I did then I am happy to let that pass.  Craig’s argument is, logically:

Part 1

1. Major Premise – Everything that exists (All M) has an explanation of its existence (P).
2. Minor Premise – The universe (S) falls into the category of “Everything that exists” (All M).
3. Conclusion – The universe (S) has an explanation of its existence (P).

Part 2

1. Premise – If the universe has an explanation of its existence (A) then that explanation is God (B).
2. Assertion – The universe has an explanation of its existence (A from the introductory syllogism).
3. Conclusion – Therefore, the explanation for the existence of the universe is God (B).

At this point, all that the argument can logically conclude (as much as it does) is that the explanation for the existence of the universe is God – if one accepts the premises and the assertion.  However, there is an additional argument that is only implied (shown as a modus ponens):

Part 3

1. Premise – If an explanation is strong (A2) then any agents called upon in that explanation must exist (B2).
2. Assertion – The explanation for the existence of the universe is strong (A2).
3. Conclusion – Therefore, the agent called upon in that explanation, namely God, must exist (B2).

While I used the term “strong” with respect to an explanation, characterisation of the argument can be “sufficient”, “necessary”, “comprehensive” or whatever Craig likes.  It’s up to him to present his argument clearly, if he wants us to know what he means.

--------------------------------

This argument from contingency, while Craig seems to like it, is one of his lighter arguments.  In part 1, he conflates “cause” with “explanation” which is a common failure on the part of theists.  The reason for this is that the question “why?” can be answered with a cause or an explanation.  For example:

Why are the Himalayas so high?

Because since 70 million years ago, the Indian subcontinent has been colliding into the Asian continent, causing ancient limestone seabed to thrust upwards.

Or

Why are the Himalayas so high?

Because it’s the abode of Shiva, Shiva is an important god who needs an important place to live.

The latter is an explanation, while the former is a description of the cause.  The cause, irrespective of how you describe it won’t change.  Explanations are legion (it could have been planted by Buddha, God might have built it to kill mountaineers, aliens might have built it to hide their secret observation facility, proto-Masons might have built it while they were waiting for average humans to work out that they want to build cathedrals, Ra formed it to embarrass the puny Egyptians with their relatively minuscule pyramids, etc etc).  Most of the explanations are false, the cause is true irrespective of whether we know what it is or not.

Part 1 needs to be reworded thus:

1. Major Premise – Everything that exists (All M) has a cause of its existence (P).
2. Minor Premise – The universe (S) falls into the category of “Everything that exists” (All M).
3. Conclusion – The universe (S) has a cause of its existence (P).

Remember we have clarified that "cause" and "explanation" are not the same thing.  Plenty of things happen for which we have no explanation, but we can be quite certain that they had causes.

Purely by fixing part 1 of Craig's argument, the argument as a whole fails, since part 2 no longer follows (we have shown the necessity of a cause, but not an explanation).  But let’s have a look at it anyway.

Part 2 has a major stumbling block in the Premise (which is Craig's line 2):

 Premise – If the universe has an explanation of its existence (A) then that explanation is God (B).

This is a rather bold statement which doesn't seem to have sufficient support.  Disproving it is reasonably easy using the Black Swan approach.  Until a Black Swan was seen in Western Australia in 1697, the following premise was valid, or "apparently true":

  Premise – If a bird is a swan (A) then that bird is white (B).

Proving it invalid required precisely one example of a swan which is not white.  This is because the "white swan" premise is implicitly equivalent to an absolute assertion like "All swans are white", it can be disproved by one example, because if "Not all swans are white" is true, then the assertion "All swans are white" is false.  (Equally, the assertion "The only colour that swans have is white" can be shown to be false by the presentation of a single non-white swan.)  To make a swan premise valid, we need to reword: 

Premise – If a bird is a swan (A) then that bird might be white (B).

To prove Craig's premise to be invalid then, we must first look closely at its nature - does it contain an absolute statement?

Well, yes, it does.  Craig hasn't stated it explicitly, but what he means is:

 Premise – If the universe has an explanation for its existence (A) then the only rational explanation can be God (B).

The premise rests on the assertion that there is only one rational explanation for the existence of the universe. We differ on the interpretation of rationality, but there are plenty of explanations out there for the beginning of the universe. Remember that there is only one explanation required, and there is no requirement for Craig to understand the explanation.  Craig's premise can be shown to be invalid here - in one of the first links that Google gave me. Alternatively, we have other possible mythological explanations: Ra creating everything with his seed, or Nyx laying a golden egg out of which everything hatched, or a Japanese germ, and so on. Of course the creation myths don't seem overly rational, but then again, the Biblical account is clearly wrong (compare the account of Adam and Eve in the first two books of Genesis).

But Craig isn't a Fundamentalist or a literalist. He doesn't believe that Genesis provides an accurate account of creation. So, the literal lack of rationality in the Ra story, and the Nyx story, and the Japanese germ story doesn't prevent them from being equally valid explanations for the universe. Therefore, rewording accordingly:

Premise – If the universe has an explanation for its existence (A) then the rational explanation might be God (B).

Or, it might not.  

Keen eyed readers will have noted that I've changed "explanation of its existence" to "explanation for its existence".  It's a minor thing, but possibly part of Craig's effort to muddy the water.  An explanation of the universe's existence would include descriptions of general relativity, particle physics and so on.  It would be about how the universe works.  An explanation for the universe's existence is more about how the universe came about.  I suspect that Craig really means "for" rather than "of".  If he truly is arguing that physics and chemistry and astronomy and biology, etc etc, are not explanations of the universe, and should be replaced by a one word answer, then he's a liar (he denies being a Young Earth creationist and argues that he is pro-science and pro-reason).  I don't think that Craig is a liar in this sense.

So we've now got:

Part 1

1. Major Premise – Everything that exists (All M) has a cause of its existence (P).
2. Minor Premise – The universe (S) falls into the category of “Everything that exists” (All M).
3. Conclusion – The universe (S) has a cause of its existence (P).

Part 2

1.  If the universe has an explanation for its existence (A) then the rational explanation might be God (B).
2. Assertion – The universe has a large number of explanations for its existence, both mythological and scientific (A).
3. Conclusion – Therefore, the explanation for the existence for the universe might be God or any of the multitude of other explanations, mythological and scientific or something we haven't thought of yet (B). 
4. Corollary – Therefore, we just don't know (C).

Finally we turn to part 3, looking at the Premise :

Premise – If an explanation is strong (A2) then any agents called upon in that explanation must exist (B2).

Well, in context this premise fails because there is insufficient support for the contention that the argument is strong (or whatever adjective Craig wishes to apply) in part because this part of the argument was not stated explicitly.  Even so, the premise itself is faulty.  Luminiferous aether is an agent in what was a strong explanation for transmission of light, some people still believe that a form of it exists - but the point is that in Einstein's relativity, it is shown that luminiferous aether is unnecessary.

----------------------------

Am I being unfair?  Craig surely provided some evidence to support the claims that I have so quickly dismissed, right?  OK, let's look at the evidence he provided during the Craig-Krauss argument.

Now experience teaches that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence: either in its own nature, if it exists necessarily, or in an external cause, if it exists contingently. So what about the universe, where by “the universe” I mean all of spacetime reality, not just our observable portion of it? What is the explanation of its existence? Well, since the universe is contingent in its existence, the explanation of the universe must be found in an external cause which exists beyond time and space by a necessity of its own nature.

Now what could that be? There are only two kinds of things that could fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or God. But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations. The number 7, for example, has no effect upon anything. Therefore, it follows that the most plausible explanation of the universe is God. Hence, the existence of contingent beings makes God’s existence more probable than it would have been without them.

Craig's evidence that the explanation of the universe must be God is that he cannot think of any other "external cause which exists beyond time and space by a necessity of its own nature" other than God, or numbers - which is an appeal to ignorance. Fallacies are not evidence, therefore no evidence provided.

Craig doesn't really provide any evidence that the God explanation is rational and/or strong other than the contingent one - in that by providing the argument, Craig implies that by necessity he is stating that the argument is rational and strong, or rather that he thinks that the argument is rational and strong.

Craig also fails to provide any evidence that agents called upon in strong explanations must exist. To be honest I didn't expect to find any since he didn't explicitly make this argument.

If you think he did provide anything closely resembling "evidence" rather than just rhetoric and distraction, please let me know.