In this episode, Trent sits down with his colleague Jimmy Akin to have a friendly chat about their agreements and disagreements over the kalam cosmological argument.
Transcript:
Welcome to the Council of Trent Podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Hey everyone. Welcome to the Council of Trent podcast. I’m your host Catholic Answers apologist and speaker Trent Horn. And today I want to share with you a dialogue that I had with my colleague Jimmy Akin on the Kalam cosmological argument and the larger issue about whether reason can prove that the universe had a beginning and these kinds of arguments for the existence of God.
So in September, Catholic Answers put on their annual conference. We have it every year. I think it’s the last week into September in San Diego, though we’re hoping in future years to be able to branch out, go to Dallas, go to other parts of the country. The theme for this year’s conference was I believe in God. So there were talks on how to answer atheism, how to make arguments for the existence of God. It was a really good event.
I had spoken with the President of Catholic Answers Chris Check several months ago and said, “Could we do a debate on atheism as part of the conference?” Logistics wise that didn’t work out this year, but we did have time to do a kind of intramural debate or dialogue. So Jimmy and I sat down and we have different views on issues related to the Kalam cosmological argument. That’s the argument that says whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause. And the idea is that you can show from reason that the universe began to exist. This is something, an argument I’ve studied for many, many years, though my views on the best way to present the argument and how to present the evidence for a finite past and how that relates to the existence of God has changed over time, even very recently. I have a video here on my channel presenting a critique of William Lane Craig’s approach to the argument, for example.
So Jimmy also had a dialogue with William Lane Craig on Pints with Aquinas. So my view on this is not the same as William Lane Craig’s, for example. So Jimmy and Craig had their dialogue. How long was that? A year or two ago? They had their dialogue and they disagreed a lot, actually. Jimmy and I actually did not disagree as much because I have more of a modified view of the Kalam argument that I think can be very helpful in showing that at the very least if there were a past infinite universe, it could only exist if God exists, to prevent paradoxes from arising and other issues like that. So we had our dialogue. I invited Cy Kellett to moderate it. All I asked Cy to do was, “Hey, if we start talking way too high level for the attendees of this conference, jump in, help us to divine terms.”
Cy didn’t even really have to jump in very much because I think Jimmy and I had a good dialogue where we could engage each other while being cognizant of those at the conference who were listening to us to keep things pretty understandable. There were certainly points and facets of the argument that we didn’t cover that I would’ve liked to have covered, but otherwise I think it was a really good exchange. So I hope you guys enjoy it. And, yeah, here’s the dialogue I had with Jimmy Akin on the Kalam argument and using reason to prove the universe began and how that relates to God’s existence.
Cy Kellett:
One thing I’ve really enjoyed at Catholic Answers, coming up on seven years there is the dialogues, the conversations, and people don’t always agree on things. And sometimes you hear that on the air, but I think rarely. And so it’s nice to have this opportunity to talk about an important philosophical topic. I’m not a great philosopher, I don’t claim to be, but I’ve always liked the Shazam argument and I’m glad we’re talking about the Shazam argument today. And they’ll each share their positions, but I’m going to just sit over here on the side and drink Diet Coke and listen and then just kind of chime in if there’s some question, if it seems to me that there’s something that needs a clarification, and that kind of thing. So please welcome Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin.
Jimmy Akin:
So you’re the bouncer if this gets violent?
Cy Kellett:
If anybody comes up here. I go right after them, yes. I’ve got a Topo Chico bottle and I will be using it.
Trent Horn:
We’re going to talk about the Kalam argument. Did you say the Shazam argument?
Cy Kellett:
Okay.
Trent Horn:
I think that’s the argument if Billy Batson says Shazam in a room without air and there’s no sound, does he still become Shazam?
Cy Kellett:
I thought that was what we were discussing.
Jimmy Akin:
Actually, classically, he doesn’t become Shazam. He becomes Captain Marvel. Shazam was the wizard who gave him his powers.
Trent Horn:
His character has been renamed Shazam in later comics.
Jimmy Akin:
That’s why I included the word classically.
Trent Horn:
Fair enough.
Cy Kellett:
This is the level of conversation-
Jimmy Akin:
To me, the Shazam argument is should he be called Shazam or should he be called Captain Marvel?
Trent Horn:
That is a fair point. He could be both, depending on your perspective.
Cy Kellett:
You ever feel regret immediately upon saying something?
Jimmy Akin:
So what are we doing here, Trent, and why are you wrong?
Trent Horn:
Well, I thought today we could talk about an argument for the existence of God, a popular one in the Catholic world.
Jimmy Akin:
Recently popular.
Trent Horn:
Recently. Yeah, well, it was an argument that kind of fell out of favor after Aquinas didn’t like it. And when Aquinas doesn’t like things in the Catholic world, a lot of times they fall out of favor. But other people have picked it up and it’s interesting. So it basically deals with the question, can we know that the universe had a beginning?
So if the universe had a beginning, this would be the Kalam cosmological argument. It was first proposed by actually a Christian named John Philoponus in the fifth century and it was refined by Muslim theologians and philosophers in the Middle Ages. Some Christians like St. Bonaventure liked it. The idea is basically whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. So the universe has a cause. And you do some more thinking to figure out this cause must have divine attributes.
The interesting question here is how do we know the universe began. As Catholics we all agree that the deposit of faith teaches us in scripture and tradition that God created the universe from nothing in the finite past. God’s eternal, the universe is not eternal. So we know that by faith, but can we know it by reason? Because if we can know by reason the universe had a beginning that provides some powerful evidence for the existence of God. But people disagree about that. And so I thought maybe we could talk about the argument and where we agree, where we disagree. Because like I said, whether the universe could be proven to begin to exist in the finite past from reason alone, there’s disagreements. Aquinas did not think so. St. Bonaventure thought so. And there’s even Catholics today-
Jimmy Akin:
And they’re both doctors of the church.
Trent Horn:
They’re both doctors of the church. You’re not a bad guy if you disagree on this question. That’s what’s interesting is being Catholic, there’s questions where we have liberty. We can discuss and debate. So, yeah, we can just jump right into it.
Jimmy Akin:
So to start on a note of agreement before we get to the Mortal Kombat phase, I agree-
Trent Horn:
Finish him.
Jimmy Akin:
I agree that the Kalam argument, the way you phrased it, anything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. And that cause is God. I agree that that is both a valid argument, meaning it obeys proper logical form, and I think it’s a sound argument, meaning I think the premises are true. Anything that has a beginning does have a cause. And the universe does have a beginning. And so I think the argument works.
The question is how can you show that the universe has a beginning? That second premise is the key one. And there’s where I think I depart from some recent popular currents in apologetics. Now as you mentioned, the Kalam argument has Christian roots, but it hasn’t been popular in Catholic circles, certainly for at least 800 years because of Aquinas’ opposition to it. Now, I’m not a Thomist. I disagree with Aquinas on bunches of stuff. But I happen to think he’s right here.
Recently, what happened starting in the 1970s, 1980s, is an evangelical philosopher and apologist named William Lane Craig or Bill Craig revived the Kalam argument in his, I think it was like his dissertation or something. And then he published some books about it and it’s become very popular in evangelical circles and it started to spill over into Catholic circles. And it’s become popular enough that I’ve kind of sounded a bit of an alarm bell to say, “Hey guys, this isn’t a slam dunk. Aquinas has reasons he opposes this. And as a Catholic, you shouldn’t just absorb the argument. You need to really think it through.”
Trent Horn:
And I’ll add in here and we’ll probably get into this later. I also have concerns and criticisms about the way that William Lane Craig has formulated and put the argument forward. It’s important to remember that the Kalam cosmological argument, sort of like cosmological argument, it’s better to say cosmological arguments, because they’re really a family of arguments. And as you’ll see this as we go through the conference, we’re talking about arguments for the existence of God. It’s really rare there’s just one argument. A lot of times someone will have an argument and they’ll say, “I think we should tweak it and it should be like this.” Or, “I think this is a better approach.” They usually come in the form of families. So actually, so some of the criticisms that you have of the Kalam, I actually also share. However, I do think they can be-
Jimmy Akin:
There’s hope for you then. Awesome.
Trent Horn:
I think there’s hope for the Kalam.
Jimmy Akin:
Okay.
Trent Horn:
It can be rehabilitated, but go on.
Jimmy Akin:
Okay, so the question is how do we support the second premise? How do we show the universe had a beginning? And there are two general approaches to doing that. One is a philosophical approach. And Bill Craig explores this possibility, as do others. The other approach is scientific, where you use evidence from modern cosmology, Big Bang cosmology to argue the universe had a beginning.
I think that the philosophical arguments, certainly all the ones I’ve seen to try to show that the universe must have a beginning, it can’t have an infinite history, I think the philosophical arguments, all of them don’t work. At least none of the ones I’ve seen work in my opinion. However, I think we can, and if you have seen the little booklet or book I wrote called Words of Eternal Life, I actually use a simple version of the Kalam argument in that where I don’t philosophically argue that the universe had a beginning. Instead, I argue from the Big Bang cosmology to say, “Okay, Big Bang gives us reason to believe that the universe had a beginning. We see a beginning-like event about 13.8 billion years in the past. And so if that’s a real beginning to the universe, then the universe had a beginning and the rest of the argument follows.”
So I’m willing to use a limited version of the Kalam argument with a scientific justification for the beginning of the universe. But in science, everything is provisional. There is never final proof in science. And it is quite possible that although the Big Bang did occur 13.8 billion years ago, it is very possible that there were states that preceded the Big Bang. Now back in the 1980s, you would commonly hear cosmologists saying that there was a singularity at the beginning of the universe, that 13.8 billion years ago, space and time sprang into existence and so there was nothing before that. But that’s a position in cosmology that is obsolete.
If you talk to modern cosmologists, they’re going to say, “No, we don’t have evidence of a singularity 13.8 billion years ago. There may have been preceding states.” So the Big Bang may not have been the beginning of our universe. From a faith perspective, there’s still a beginning. It would just be farther back than we can detect scientifically. So I would say that the value of the scientific evidence is limited in that it does seem to support a beginning to the universe, but it doesn’t do so in a definitive conclusive way. It only does so in a suggestive way. So I would use a very limited version of the Kalam argument, and I wouldn’t want to oversell it as this is clinching proof.
Trent Horn:
Right. Well, I think that’s something you and I have in common when we’re engaging people and using arguments, like I believe when you make an argument, try to make your evidence as bulletproof as possible. And one way to make your argument really strong is to not overextend your case. If you are making a modest claim, that’s easier to defend than a very strong claim. So I agree with the science there because you’ll have people putting forward these theorems like the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem and others. But then there are exceptions and there are-
Jimmy Akin:
Including Craig. He appeals to that theorem.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Jimmy Akin:
And then the very guys he’s citing say, “He’s misapplying my theorem.”
Trent Horn:
Right. So I think that you and I might agree, I would agree with the science that it points. And now everyone looking at the scientific evidence, not all of them will find that convincing of an absolute beginning, but some will, and if it is helpful for them, the scientific based Kalam can be a good argument. I just happen to think something similar can be done with the philosophical arguments. That they may not convince everyone that the universe had a beginning, but for some people it may be very suggestive that, “No, I think these arguments show there’s a beginning.” And so I think they may not be conclusive proofs, but they might have a similar suggestive power, in my opinion.
Jimmy Akin:
Okay. And I recognize that different people will find different arguments persuasive, and I don’t have a problem in principle saying to people, “Here’s a set of arguments that have been proposed. And you can evaluate them for yourself.” But what I don’t want to do is present arguments that I don’t believe work as if they’re proofs.
This is something that actually came up when I debated Bill Craig, because I had a debate with him on this subject on Matt Fradd’s Pints With Aquinas podcast.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Jimmy Akin:
And I presented a counter argument to Craig where I said, “Okay, classically, the way divine omnipotence is understood,” and Aquinas has this definition, “is God can do anything that is logically possible.” Meaning if a state of affairs does not involve a logical contradiction, God can make it happen.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Jimmy Akin:
So God could make fire-breathing dragons, if He wanted, but he could not make married bachelors because there’s a contradiction between the idea of being a bachelor and the idea of being married. Similarly, he could not make four sided triangles, because by definition triangles have three angles and three sides if it’s a closed polygonal shape.
Trent Horn:
Right.
Jimmy Akin:
So for me to say, “The universe must have a beginning for philosophical rather than scientific reasons,” would be convertible to the proposition, God cannot make a universe with an infinite past. And if you say God cannot make something, then to me that means it must involve a logical contradiction. So from a Christian perspective, I would need to see a logical contradiction in the idea of an infinite past. And Craig does not propose one. He instead will say things like, “Well, if the universe did have an infinite past, then there would be an actual infinity, and that leads to absurd conclusions. Therefore there was no infinite past.” And I don’t buy that at all because God can do things that strike us as absurd. How about God becomes man? God dies on a cross? God gives us His body and blood under the forms of bread and wine? And also all of quantum mechanics.
God does all kinds of things that strike us as absurd from a human perspective. So I need more than just something that seems absurd before I can say, “God can’t do something.” I need an actual logical contradiction. And Craig doesn’t propose one. So he very much did not like my counter argument. And part of the reason he didn’t like it is because he was like, “Why would you even want to argue this way because this argument could help convince people to believe in God?” And so he was concerned about my counter argument would damage the utility of this in convincing people. And I said, “From a Christian position, I think I’m ethically obligated to examine my own arguments and not just say, ‘Oh, that’ll work,’ and run with it. I need to cross examine my own arguments and say, ‘Would they work from my perspective?'”
Trent Horn:
Right.
Jimmy Akin:
If they don’t work from my perspective, then I need to tell people that. And so that actually got me a lot of respect on the atheist internet. And there are atheists who take me more serious, they also take you seriously. Trent and I are two of the apologists that are taken most seriously by atheists on the internet because they recognize we’re not going to use an any stick will do approach to apologetics. We actually cross-examine our own arguments. So I think there’s a limited utility to saying, “Here are a bunch of arguments. You can pass your own judgment.” But if I know I think an argument doesn’t work, from my position I feel an obligation to say, “Personally, I’m not a fan of this one. I don’t think it works.”
Trent Horn:
Well, I agree with you that if there is an argument that I think is just patently bad, I will not use it. And I will just say that. Like saying, for example, an argument from common consent. If nearly everybody agrees on something, it’s true. Nearly everybody agrees there’s a God, therefore God exists. Now that argument could be saved if you modify the premises a bit. But so if I see an argument and I think it’s just bad, I might think, “Okay, maybe I can fix it up a little bit to nuance it to avoid these problems.”
I did watch your dialogue with Craig. I do think though that one concern I have is I agree with you that God can do anything that is not logically contradictory. But there is a bit of a spectrum when we talk about logical contradiction. So you can have-
Jimmy Akin:
Oh, this is getting interesting.
Trent Horn:
Yes, it will
Jimmy Akin:
A spectrum i... Read more on Catholic.com