Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
After noting that there's more than 320 comments(!) on this thread, I've just lost the will to
wade through the farrago of misrepresentations, pseudoscience, distortions, equivocation,
obfuscations, and outright lies that SteveII has presented us with.

I did note in passing that he reckons "triangles exist whether there are humans or not—and
the interior angles will always equal 180 degrees whether humans exist or not.

Not so, as the rest of us know from a non-Euclidean perspective wherein a triangle can
contain 3 right angles = 270 degrees.  And it's exactly this repetitive ignorance of the finer
scientific details that weakens Steve's propositions in so many instances.  The thing is of
course, that apologetics must, in order to mount a case, ignore a lot of science both in theory
and in practise.  Or abuse the bits they do know.

I'm beginning to think now that maybe Steve is just having a jolly good laugh at our responses
to what I'm guessing is major trolling.  Nobody could possibly be so lacking in logic or rationale,
or intellect as this bloke... could they?  I've seen high-school debates where the kids have put
together far more convincing—and brief—cases for this Kalam nonsense, both from the pro and
con side.

And even after all this toing and froing, Steve still  hasn't defined precisely what he means by
the terms God or gods.  I'm guessing it's because he can't, because he doesn't know himself.
The closest he's come to a definition is that gods are supernatural entities—which funnily
enough is the scientific definition LOL.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 4 users Like SYZ's post:
  • JesseB, Dancefortwo, Bucky Ball, Paleophyte
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 04:41 AM)JesseB Wrote: But the most important point? My magical cock is equally as valid as @SteveII 's god using his own arguments.

SteveII is trying to shove his God down our throats.  Please don't try the same with your magical cock.   Shake
No gods necessary
The following 1 user Likes brunumb's post:
  • JesseB
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 05:13 AM)SYZ Wrote: After noting that there's more than 320 comments(!) on this thread, I've just lost the will to
wade through the farrago of misrepresentations, pseudoscience, distortions, equivocation,
obfuscations, and outright lies that SteveII has presented us with.

I did note in passing that he reckons "triangles exist whether there are humans or not—and
the interior angles will always equal 180 degrees whether humans exist or not.

Not so, as the rest of us know from a non-Euclidean perspective wherein a triangle can
contain 3 right angles = 270 degrees.  And it's exactly this repetitive ignorance of the finer
scientific details that weakens Steve's propositions in so many instances.  The thing is of
course, that apologetics must, in order to mount a case, ignore a lot of science both in theory
and in practise.  Or abuse the bits they do know.

I'm beginning to think now that maybe Steve is just having a jolly good laugh at our responses
to what I'm guessing is major trolling.  Nobody could possibly be so lacking in logic or rationale,
or intellect as this bloke... could they?  I've seen high-school debates where the kids have put
together far more convincing—and brief—cases for this Kalam nonsense, both from the pro and
con side.

And even after all this toing and froing, Steve still  hasn't defined precisely what he means by
the terms God or gods.  I'm guessing it's because he can't, because he doesn't know himself.
The closest he's come to a definition is that gods are supernatural entities—which funnily
enough is the scientific definition LOL.


Maybe.  But I believe him when he says he just enjoys apologetics and likes trying things out with us.  I personally have zero interest in these kinds of arguments, though I haven't been engaging in the particulars of his formulations at all. 

I haven't followed it all either.  This kind of stuff just puts me to sleep.  From what I've read I'd say you have missed nothing of any consequence.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 2 users Like Mark's post:
  • SYZ, LadyforCamus
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 06:22 AM)brunumb Wrote:
(12-17-2018, 04:41 AM)JesseB Wrote: But the most important point? My magical cock is equally as valid as @SteveII 's god using his own arguments.

SteveII is trying to shove his God down our throats.  Please don't try the same with your magical cock.   Shake

lol Don't encourage me :p I could come up with an endless number of jokes based on the church of the rising penis 

I do love a good double entendre
The universe doesn't give a fuck about you. Don't cry though, at least I do.
The following 1 user Likes JesseB's post:
  • SYZ
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
So here we are at hundreds of posts and tens of thousands of words poured into this thread and the most glaring contradiction of the entire evangelical effort not yet noticed:

The attempt by the evangelicals to apply a scientific proof to something they claim is beyond the reach of science.  The KCA is a syllogism (a flawed one), and the syllogism is one of the standard tools of science.  The evangelicals are in essence (attempting, badly) to use science to disprove science's efficacy.

The bedrock principal of religion is faith:  you gotta believe by faith, not by science, not by reason, not by evidence.  By faith.  That's the prime virtue.  Any attempt to drag god into tangible presence by science directly contravenes that principal.  Prove god's existence by science and you've lost the very entity you've sought.

No evangelical should at any time be constructing rational proofs of god.  Nothing they've produced amounts to that; their application of science is always disfigured by ignorance and thereby inept and useless - and it can't be anything BUT inept and useless.  But they keep trying - I suppose because science is the best tool we've ever invented for decoding nature and it so suffuses our every endeavor we refer to it always for its credibility and stature.  But to use it to try to prove something claimed to be beyond its reach is, well, stupid is as good a word as any to describe the effort.

The evangelical has only one argument:  strength of belief by faith.  That's it.  All the science and logic brought ineptly to bear defeats the very core of the belief.  Every syllogism attempted only betrays the evangelical's unconscious acknowledgement that science IS superior to faith, and an absence of conviction that their belief on faith alone is sound.
The following 6 users Like airportkid's post:
  • JesseB, Mark, brunumb, Full Circle, Chas, evenheathen
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 10:43 AM)airportkid Wrote: So here we are at hundreds of posts and tens of thousands of words poured into this thread and the most glaring contradiction of the entire evangelical effort not yet noticed:

The attempt by the evangelicals to apply a scientific proof to something they claim is beyond the reach of science.  The KCA is a syllogism (a flawed one), and the syllogism is one of the standard tools of science.  The evangelicals are in essence (attempting, badly) to use science to disprove science's efficacy.

The bedrock principal of religion is faith:  you gotta believe by faith, not by science, not by reason, not by evidence.  By faith.  That's the prime virtue.  Any attempt to drag god into tangible presence by science directly contravenes that principal.  Prove god's existence by science and you've lost the very entity you've sought.

No evangelical should at any time be constructing rational proofs of god.  Nothing they've produced amounts to that; their application of science is always disfigured by ignorance and thereby inept and useless - and it can't be anything BUT inept and useless.  But they keep trying - I suppose because science is the best tool we've ever invented for decoding nature and it so suffuses our every endeavor we refer to it always for its credibility and stature.  But to use it to try to prove something claimed to be beyond its reach is, well, stupid is as good a word as any to describe the effort.

The evangelical has only one argument:  strength of belief by faith.  That's it.  All the science and logic brought ineptly to bear defeats the very core of the belief.  Every syllogism attempted only betrays the evangelical's unconscious acknowledgement that science IS superior to faith, and an absence of conviction that their belief on faith alone is sound.

Partially agree. 

Logic, (especially when no one has even attempted to posit which system of logic they are using, and why it's applicable to this situation) is not science. 
Nowhere in the scientific method does it say logic must be employed, nor does it say which system has to be used. Logic and science are different things. 
Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. There are logics that are totally consistent, (as Carroll reminds Craig in their debate), yet do not obtain in reality. Evidence is needed. 

But you're totally correct about the faith business. IF they had a proof for a god, they would need no faith. Faith is what Paul says they are saved by. Faith is a gift of their "Spirit", (Paul) and faith comes from their God "and not from ourselves" (Paul again). So they can't have it both ways. Great observation !
I have reminded ole Stevie of this somewhere ... maybe not here.  

And this Steve guy claims to be a theologian ... heh heh.
Test
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-16-2018, 03:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(12-16-2018, 12:25 PM)SteveII Wrote: Regarding ex nihilo or ex materia. The distinction is irrelevant to a causal principle.

I'm sorry, but it really isn't. The distinction is that you have no basis for the former and the latter doesn't advance your argument. Observe:

Quote:But so we don't equivocate on the phase, when we say "begins to exists" we mean exactly:

"Begins to exist" is nothing more than word bending in a vain attempt to disguise the equivocation. Those words aren't where your problem lies.

1. Whatever begins to exist from nothing has a cause.

The words in green are not the problem. You can stop proving them.

The words in red are the source of your equivocation. Please stop trying to suggest that "begins to exist from nothing" is equivalent to "begins to exist from something else". They clearly are not the same.

The words in blue are not demonstrated. We have never observed creatio ex nihilo so your first premise is baseless.

Quote:Your ex nihilo/ ex materia distinction has nothing to do with our understanding of what we mean by "begins to exist".

And everything to do with causality and equivocation. The distinction between "begins to exist from nothing" and "begins to exist from something" does not change that they begin to exist. You are focusing on the wrong portion of the statement. They impact what can and cannot be stated about their cause for existing. You have failed to address this issue.

The premise

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

is referring to the metaphysical concept of causality. I have provided definitions to use throughout the argument. As long as the argument keeps using those definitions there is NO equivocating.

"Begins to exist" = x begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists.

"Cause" = Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past (more precise: none lie in its future). An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Notice how there is no mention that the concept requires a material subject. Why? Because causality is a metaphysical concept and applies to reality--not just a part of it (material thing). MANY things begin to exist and have causes that are not made of material things.

This brings up a closely related concept. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). The PSR is a metaphysical principle that seems reasonable to take as a necessary truth. Therefore, necessarily, every proposition reporting a wholly contingent, positive state of affairs can have an explanation. Reasons to believe the PSR:

a. it is self-evident.
b. the epistemological argument. If we admit that some contingent states of affairs has no explanation, then empirical truths cannot be known because you can never be sure if any state of affairs has no explanation.
c. Theories like that of evolution depend on a version of the PSR
d. Inference to the Best Explanation (a foundation of science) relies on a version of the PSR.
e. Lack of examples where the PSR does not apply.
f. Alethic modality relies on a version of the PSR.
g. Philosophical and Moral reasoning relies on a version of the PSR.

You repeated claim that "from nothing" somehow makes a difference misses the deeper issue.
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
I think the problem with this:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) may be stated as a simple syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. And that cause is God.

Is that step 4 could be litterally anything. "...and that cause is hotdogs" is a perfectly valid response, as you can't prove god did anything [or exists in the first place] so saying any other word is just as effective, because you'd have to 100% prove that "hotdogs" didn't exist before the universe, which while you might think "well of course we can", because nobody was around at that time......we can't 100% say for sure. Maybe pre-universe, it was just all hotdogs and nothing else. We honestly would never know.
The following 4 users Like OakTree500's post:
  • Mark, Paleophyte, Full Circle, SYZ
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
Quote:Because causality is a metaphysical concept and applies to reality ...

Doesn't matter what it is. Trying to dress up shit as a fancy "metaphysical concept" isn't helping. He has no evidence of that, and in fact has been given examples where it is not true. All he knows about is a tiny slice from a universe where 95 % of "reality" is unknown in terms of what it is, and how it works, and has NO other samples and no knowledge of anything other than the tiny slice. Basing a belief system on that crap statistical sample is bogus. The entire enterprise of "reasonable faith" is bogus. They're desperate, and it shows. (He also forgot to address the *red* words ... LOL).

"God" (of course it just happens to be *his* god) is undefined. #4 is an unjustified leap to an unfounded conclusion. AND in the very same argument they claim #1, they have the balls to Special Plead their gods as exempt FROM THEIR OWN #1 premise. Nothing but apologetic BS.
Test
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • unfogged, LadyforCamus
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 04:01 PM)OakTree500 Wrote: I think the problem with this:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) may be stated as a simple syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. And that cause is God.

Is that step 4 could be litterally anything. "...and that cause is hotdogs" is a perfectly valid response, as you can't prove god did anything [or exists in the first place] so saying any other word is just as effective, because you'd have to 100% prove that "hotdogs" didn't exist before the universe, which while you might think "well of course we can", because nobody was around at that time......we can't 100% say for sure. Maybe pre-universe, it was just all hotdogs and nothing else. We honestly would never know.



Plus the hot dog would be a good deal more nourishing.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 1 user Likes Mark's post:
  • OakTree500
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-16-2018, 04:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote: More simply stated:

(1) Only that which begins to exist from something else has been demonstrated to be caused.
(2) The Universe has not been demonstrated to have begun existing from anything else.
(3) Combining 1 and 2 we can show that the Universe has not been demonstrated to have been caused.

(1) is a tautology. That is simply the definition of a cause. You actually have to insert the word "material" to make your point--but you don't want to do that because that will bring up my repeated objection of why you limit the principle to only material thing when we in fact use the term on everything that exists in all of reality (concrete as well as abstract objects). As the definition of Causality above said: "Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space" and THEREFORE ALL material objects.
(2) Exactly my point.
(3) Non sequitur. 3 does not follow from 1 and 2 logically unless you insert the word "material" in number 1.
The following 1 user Likes SteveII's post:
  • LadyforCamus
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
I am going to do the unforgivable and jump into this thread without having read any of the prior arguments, as I suspect what I will post has not been covered. Hopefully I will have time to catch up during the week. I originally thought of the following argument along the lines of an argument against the existence of God, but in hindsight, I think its best use is to form the basis of a reductio ad absurdum argument against the Kalaam cosmological argument. I make reference to William Lane Craig's statements if for no other reason that that I know Steve is strongly influenced by him and he is regarded as one of the foremost proponents of the argument today. This version of my argument is not such a reductio ad absurdum, but I think, given my additional comments here, the way forward to such an argument is clear. In particular, the primary failing in the short version of the argument is that it does not properly deal with the questions of whether the universe is finite or infinite in time, and whether the universe is bounded or unbounded in time. Pursuing those questions in my head led me to conclude that this is not properly a proof against the existence of God, but only against the viability of the Kalaam as an argument for God's existence. This is so because, I believe, if you draw out the four cases alluded to above, you either end up with a proof against God, or the assumptions of the Kalaam cosmological argument do not hold. As noted, I've only ever worked this out in my head, so I could be wrong. Anyway, on to the argument.

Quote:If he existed and the universe did not, then that moment and that of creation are two moments, and he exists in time (Craig, 2002). If he existed in time, and is a necessary being -- has always existed -- then he couldn't have created the universe, as that would have required the traversal of an actual infinite, which is impossible (Craig, 2007). If he existed and created simultaneously, then he also exists in time, as simultaneity is a temporal relation. In that case he did not create the universe because a cause must precede its effect. So, your God did not create the universe in either case. As this exhausts the potential cases, your God did not create the universe. Since God is by definition the creator of the universe, your God does not exist.

* This proof necessarily only applies to creator gods, I think. I hadn't considered anything beyond the Judeo-Christian God, much less something like the god of Neo-Platonism.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 2 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Grandizer, Paleophyte
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 05:01 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(12-16-2018, 04:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote: More simply stated:

(1) Only that which begins to exist from something else has been demonstrated to be caused.
(2) The Universe has not been demonstrated to have begun existing from anything else.
(3) Combining 1 and 2 we can show that the Universe has not been demonstrated to have been caused.

(1) is a tautology. That is simply the definition of a cause. You actually have to insert the word "material" to make your point--but you don't want to do that because that will bring up my repeated objection of why you limit the principle to only material thing when we in fact use the term on everything that exists in all of reality (concrete as well as abstract objects). As the definition of Causality above said: "Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space" and THEREFORE ALL material objects.
(2) Exactly my point.
(3) Non sequitur. 3 does not follow from 1 and 2 logically unless you insert the word "material" in number 1.

Actually #1 is not a tautology. It's not restating anything.
There is no reason anyone has to play by his preconceived fundy word-games.
He actually has no idea, (unless he reads minds now) why someone did something.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tautology

His argument is totally dishonest. He says himself "when we in fact use the term on everything that exists in all of reality (concrete as well as abstract objects) ..... and guess what kids ? Everything that exists in all of reality INCLUDES HIS DEITY, and is therefore subject to the premise.
He just defeated his own argument.
Test
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 05:01 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(12-16-2018, 04:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote: More simply stated:

(1) Only that which begins to exist from something else has been demonstrated to be caused.
(2) The Universe has not been demonstrated to have begun existing from anything else.
(3) Combining 1 and 2 we can show that the Universe has not been demonstrated to have been caused.

(1) is a tautology. That is simply the definition of a cause. You actually have to insert the word "material" to make your point--but you don't want to do that because that will bring up my repeated objection of why you limit the principle to only material thing when we in fact use the term on everything that exists in all of reality (concrete as well as abstract objects). As the definition of Causality above said: "Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space" and THEREFORE ALL material objects.
(2) Exactly my point.
(3) Non sequitur. 3 does not follow from 1 and 2 logically unless you insert the word "material" in number 1.

My bold.

It's still a non-sequitur. I don't see what materialism has to do with it. As far as I'm concerned everything is physical ... including both abstract and concrete objects. I've never seen anyone be able to present or give an example of something non-physical. As far as I'm concerned that which is physical is simply the totality of naturalistic reality ... and no one has ever presented anything supernaturalistic (nor can they). As far as I'm concerned "physical", "material" and "naturalistic" are all interchangeable.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 3 users Like EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • Bucky Ball, LadyforCamus, Gwaithmir
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 03:59 PM)SteveII Wrote: Notice how there is no mention that the concept requires a material subject. Why? Because causality is a metaphysical concept and applies to reality-

You have no way to know or demonstrate this, and without it, the argument collapses in on itself.
The following 1 user Likes LadyforCamus's post:
  • unfogged
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-16-2018, 08:00 PM)Glossophile Wrote:
(12-16-2018, 02:00 PM)SteveII Wrote: You cannot get to infinity by successive addition--you will ALWAYS be able to add one more. This is just a fact there is no way to get around. That seems to address most of your point. Let me know if it does not.

First, the notion of an infinite past being traversed by successive addition seems to presuppose the objective reality of temporal becoming (i.e. the A Theory).  If past, present, and future are all, at least in some sense, coexistent, then arguably, there's nothing to traverse.  It's the difference between building an infinite library book-by-book and merely wandering through an infinite library with its countless volumes already existing all at once.  Each book doesn't come into existence as we reach the right spot on the right shelf.  It's always there.  We just have to reach it.  In the same way, the future isn't being created with each successive moment.  We are merely reaching each successive moment in a series that's already there.

Even if I grant for the sake of exploring this that the B Theory of Time is true, and that spacetime is a block of all equally existing timeslices, there still is a front edge of the block according to the standard big bank model. The infinite number of proposed timeslices is in the future direction.

Quote:Second, it didn't take long at all for me to find a scholarly criticism of Craig's line of argumentation against an actual infinite.  Perhaps predictably, much of the relevant section of the paper might be summarized as Craig applying quotidian intuitions in non-quotidian realms where their applicability becomes questionable.  This seems to be a persistent habit of Craig's.  In this particular case, the critique reveals that he also seems to be essentially confusing ordinality with cardinality.  Another, somewhat more accessible resource might be Michael Stevens' fascinating video on transfinite numbers. 

The video link did not work. I read the Wes Morrison paper. He does not set out to prove that they do and only offers 3 reasons at the end that seem kind of lame--"Are there in fact any infinite sets in reality? Three considerations may be thought to favour an affirmative answer." (page 18). Hardly a bold counter to the question. Though if you think one or more is convincing, which one and I will read it again.

Quote:Third, if paradoxes and/or apparent contradictions are enough to dismiss the possibility of a particular concept, then I'm afraid your God fares no better than an actual infinite.  Consider the omnipotence/omniscience paradox.  Knowing one's own future decisions may not be scientifically possible, but it is logically possible.  That is to say, there is nothing logically incoherent about it.  The idea doesn't violate any of the foundational axioms of logic.  It upholds identity, entails no contradiction, and excludes no middle.  In the "On the Burden of Proof and Implicit vs. Explicit Agnosticism" thread, you agreed to this definition of "logically possible."  Similarly, changing one's mind is also logically possible, a fact made extra clear by the fact that it's not only scientifically possible as well but also a fairly common phenomenon.  So the question is this: can God change his mind?  If he can, then he is not omniscient, since a change of mind entails lack of foreknowledge.  But if he can't, than he is not omnipotent, since we've found a logically possible deed of which he is incapable.  
 
In respect to God, the traditional understanding of omniscience is knowledge of all true proposition that are logically possible to know--including counterfactuals. Similarly, omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible and not contrary to his nature. Omniscience and 'change you mind' are logically contradictory concepts. Your last sentence has the error in it: "But if he can't, than he is not omnipotent, since we've found a logically possible deed of which he is incapable" -- you just established that it is not logically compatible with another property of God so you have not "found a logically possible deed.


Quote:
(12-16-2018, 02:00 PM)SteveII Wrote: Second, why do cosmologists like the B Theory of Time? Seriously--do you know?

The B Theory of Time is more compatible with the Einsteinian model, so it stands to reason that modern cosmologists would consider it more plausible than the A Theory.

Quote:
(12-16-2018, 02:00 PM)SteveII Wrote: FYI, one interpretation if Einstein's theory results in a B Theory of time. There are other interpretations.

Such as?  Even if such interpretations exist, until a clear scientific consensus emerges as to which interpretation is correct, you can't just invoke the one that happens to be most convenient for you in defense of the KCA and then use it to claim solid scientific backing.

Look, this rabbit hole has been interesting, but I've just realized it's at least somewhat tangential.  The failure of the KCA is not contingent upon an an infinite past.  I could go ahead and grant you that the cosmos is not infinitely old, thus essentially accepting P2, and most or all of the problems with equivocation and/or special pleading would remain.  

(12-16-2018, 02:00 PM)SteveII Wrote: Having a scientific theory that spells out why the past is not infinite is evidence that the past is not infinite. This logically infers there must be a first cause. See, no God-of-the-Gaps reasoning employed.

Well, aside from what JesseB has already pointed out, again, granting that there must have been a first cause, we're still in no position to make any specific claims about the nature of that first cause.  Therefore, since so much about it is as yet unknown, it is indeed a kind of gap into which you're plugging a very specific deity.

I wouldn't know what JesseB has pointed out. Haven't read a thing of his since page one. Can't read everything and I found character to be a good metric to use.

The very non-religious first three premises infer a first cause and some of the attributes it must have. Noting the attributes uniquely match some of the attributes of God is not plugging anything into anything.

Quote:
(12-16-2018, 02:40 PM)SteveII Wrote: You are missing the flow of the argument. It is not an assumption or premise that there must be a immaterial consciousness, it is the conclusion. You object to the conclusion but it does follow from the premises. You can't claim special pleading in a conclusion that follows from valid premises.  Which premise is obviously wrong?

The assumption here is not that the first cause is immaterial, but that it's conscious.  Not only is this claim unwarranted, it's also undermined by at least one of the other attributes that you're trying to argue for (namely, timelessness).  Why?  Read on.

(12-16-2018, 02:40 PM)SteveII Wrote: There does not have to be anything prior to God's action to create. A cause can be simultaneous with the effect. Take a heavy ball on a stretched bed sheet. The indent the ball makes occurs simultaneous with gravity pulling the ball down. A train locomotive with really good couplers is the cause of the simultaneous movement of all the cars. God simply had a timeless intent to act. No process is needed--there was a state in which only God existed and then there was a state where the universe was unfolding. Think of it this way, God could not have said to himself "I will create a universe later."

Notice anything odd about the ball or the train?  Both are unconscious.  Again, "timeless intent" is an incoherent or at least unfalsifiable concept.  At best, timelessness compels perpetual agnosticism regarding consciousness.  For any conscious choice to be plausibly identified and defined, there must be some span of time prior to the effect during which the cause existed in the absence of said effect. Without any perceptible temporal lapse between the agent's prior existence and the effect of its presumed decision, the supposedly conscious being becomes indistinguishable from an unconscious force acting according to natural laws (even if those laws are as yet unknown).  So if the cause in question exists in some allegedly atemporal realm, then obviously, there can be no such lapse.  Even if we generously grant that consciousness is theoretically possible outside of time, we're left with no way to ascertain whether or not the cause in question is an instantiation of that possibility.  Maybe the cause is conscious.  Maybe it's not.  Without a temporal dimension, we just can't know; not with anything close to the confidence that you and other theists often exude.

I don't think you are right. An eternal "unconscious force" can't create an effect that it was capable of producing but didn't. Can you describe such a thing?

It would be much easier for me to say...well, God was doing "God things" in between timeless states prior to creating the universe. But the argument does not infer such a thing.
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 03:59 PM)SteveII Wrote: The premise

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

is referring to the metaphysical concept of causality. I have provided definitions to use throughout the argument. As long as the argument keeps using those definitions there is NO equivocating.

You can keep stating that until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that P1 and P2 are describing entirely different scenarios and that inescapably leads to a fallacy of equivocation when you try and combine them in step 3. Your definitions are worthless because while they may be valid they utterly fail to address the point of the problem.

Quote:"Cause" = Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past (more precise: none lie in its future). An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

This definition is only valid for creatio ex materia. Creatio ex nihilo has never been observed, so we have absolutely no information on it. Face it, if a pizza spontaneously appears in front of you from out of nothing you aren't going to have a single damned clue what's going on. You will not be able to make a single coherent statement about that pizza's cause because you have absolutely no prior experience with creation from nothing.

Kindly note the bit that I emphasized that clearly shows how the Universe cannot have a cause by this definition.


Quote:This brings up a closely related concept.

And this has what to do with the price of cheese?

Quote:Reasons to believe the PSR:

Don't go believing your philosophy.
The following 3 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • LadyforCamus, unfogged, Deesse23
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
The ONLY thing we know about is space-time.
We know nothing about any other form or variation of time.
Test
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 05:01 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(12-16-2018, 04:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote: More simply stated:

(1) Only that which begins to exist from something else has been demonstrated to be caused.
(2) The Universe has not been demonstrated to have begun existing from anything else.
(3) Combining 1 and 2 we can show that the Universe has not been demonstrated to have been caused.

(1) is a tautology. That is simply the definition of a cause.


No, 1 is not a tautoloy. Let me elaborate for you:

(1) Only that which begins to exist from something else (creatio ex materia) has been demonstrated to be caused.
(2) The Universe has not been demonstrated to have begun existing from anything else. And you are clearly arguing for creatio ex nihilo.
(3) Combining 1 and 2 we can show that the Universe has not been demonstrated to have been caused ex nihilo.

Quote:You actually have to insert the word "material" to make your point--but you don't want to do that because that will bring up my repeated objection of why you limit the principle to only material thing when we in fact use the term on everything that exists in all of reality (concrete as well as abstract objects). As the definition of Causality above said: "Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space" and THEREFORE ALL material objects.

No I don't. I'm quite happy to let you muck about with concepts as causes all you like. It gets you nowhere. For a start, concepts do not create material in and of themselves. You need material for the concept to work upon, so unless you're arguing for a purely conceptual universe...

Let me simplify further.

(1) All of what we know of causality is based upon observations of creation from material (or conceptual).
(2) We know nothing about the causality, or lack thereof, involved in creation from nothing (nada, zip, zilch, neither material nor conceptual).
(3) You are arguing for a Universe created from nothing. As per point 2 we have no data on that but you keep trying to bastardize data from point 1, which is inapplicable. This is the source of you equivocation.
The following 2 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • unfogged, LadyforCamus
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
Quote:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
is referring to the metaphysical concept of causality. I have provided definitions to use throughout the argument. As long as the argument keeps using those definitions there is NO equivocating.

.... and now all you have to do is provide one reason why anyone should accept your particular definitions.
You still haven't explained how the creator caused Causality.

Test
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Paleophyte, Mark
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 09:18 PM)LadyforCamus Wrote:
(12-17-2018, 03:59 PM)SteveII Wrote: Notice how there is no mention that the concept requires a material subject. Why? Because causality is a metaphysical concept and applies to reality-

You have no way to know or demonstrate this, and without it, the argument collapses in on itself.

Good to hear from you! Big Grin

This is the definition I posted way back. Note the last sentence.

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past (more precise: none lie in its future). An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

If causality is prior to notions of time and space, causality is prior to notions of material objects.

Such foundational metaphysical concepts apply to all reality, not a subset of it.
The following 1 user Likes SteveII's post:
  • LadyforCamus
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 10:31 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(12-17-2018, 09:18 PM)LadyforCamus Wrote:
(12-17-2018, 03:59 PM)SteveII Wrote: Notice how there is no mention that the concept requires a material subject. Why? Because causality is a metaphysical concept and applies to reality-

You have no way to know or demonstrate this, and without it, the argument collapses in on itself.

Good to hear from you! Big Grin

This is the definition I posted way back. Note the last sentence.

Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past (more precise: none lie in its future). An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

If causality is prior to notions of time and space, causality is prior to notions of material objects.

Such foundational metaphysical concepts apply to all reality, not a subset of it.

There is no "prior to" anything, without space-time, a priori. It's a meaningless sentence, as Carroll schooled Craig on in their debate.
There are no "notions" of anything without a brain to have a "notion". There is no such thing as "notions" .... it's a fake category. Notions are IDEAS which exist in human brains. This attempt at word-play, is to obfuscate the BS behind "notions" and "metaphysics". They need this mental masturbation to get to his god(s). They don't have any way of knowing what concepts apply to all of reality ... no cosmologist claims that. They're guessing/lying with no foundation on which to make the statement. Selling the snake oil. Reality has been proven to be non-intuitive or counter-intuitive.
Test
The following 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Deesse23, Gwaithmir, LadyforCamus
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-16-2018, 12:36 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(12-15-2018, 07:35 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:
(12-13-2018, 12:02 AM)SteveII Wrote: Any atheist forum would is incomplete without a thread on the KCA. So, I'm doing my part.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) may be stated as a simple syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. And that cause is God.

If you can, you should watch this short video to get the overall context of the argument.



The form of the syllogism is inductive*. As an inductive argument, the premises do not have to be certain (that would be a deductive argument). The highly likely premises make the conclusion highly likely. Every premise has pages and pages of discussion to back it up so I don't want anyone to feel that it's just a list of bald assertions. I have seen several claim the Natural Theology arguments are all fallacious. So, how about it? What are the problems of the KCA?  

*Definition of Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion (in contrast to deductive reasoning and abductive reasoning). While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

The First Premise falls flat on its face and can not be connected to the second (which would result in the third). I'll tell you why: The assertion that everything has a cause or that everything necessitates a cause is dependent on observations inside the universe (We haven't observed outside the universe) and therefore the "rule" is a law of the universe. You realize how nonsensical it is when you realize that you are applying a law inside the universe to a topic that is outside its scope (the beginning/before the universe). 

Its kind like trying to force people to play by the rules of Monopoly outside of the game, it just doesn't (necessarily) apply. You would have to prove that it does.

"But Atothetheist," I hear you respond, "Why aren't things arising from nothing now." Two theories, both very possible: It could be that the rules outside of the Universe (the laws that cause the universe to be) DON'T work inside the Universe itself, this could be due to the properties of the universe, or that those laws no longer exist because the state of being (whatever that really means before the universe) has changed that those rules are gone and in place are these rules.

Light acts as a particle and a wave, I don't necessarily think that Universe is bound by "common sense" and "logic" those are properties of the universe. You have to prove that those laws still apply. Good luck. Thumbs Up

For instance, the singularity of the big bang is merely a point in time where the laws of the universe break down, and so the "beginning" of the Universe (13.72ish Billion years ago IIRC) is only a measurement of when the thing we know as the Universe (and its laws) come into being, its when the rules were set. Trying to apply those rules before that time isn't just inaccurate, its nonsensical. 

The fourth premise doesn't even connect to the third. Is any cause that creates the Universe God? Lets say its a (completely made up, not actually based in fact) theoretical decay in the spacetime warp-mass that's strong enough to effect the "material" of the singularity, not a conscious being, would that decay phenomenon be God? 

This argument needs a premise similar to "Only a God could create Universes" which would need a big "CITATION NEEDED."

Here's another reason why the first premise fails. We have actually never observed things "Beginning to exist" or at least not in the way that you would like to claim. Things don't "come into existence," they are transformed from one state into another state.  The first premise only applies to similar "Transformations" so, unless you admit that the universe was there in some form and was transformed into its current state, then the first premise doesn't cover complete, wholesale, creation.

also, yada yada Yada "turtles all the way down" yada yada yada "God being eternally present and not requiring a cause is special pleading" yada yada yada "If God can be uncaused then so can the universe because they are operating under different laws" yada yada yada. You get the drill.

I have addressed every bit of your response in subsequent posts. I will repost below. Please respond to that and then we can see where the problem is:

IN DEFENSE OF PREMISE 1

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Objections so far:

Paleophyte (post #4) - asserts that the universe began uncaused
Unfogged (post #7) - Category error inside/outside universe
Mathilda (post #24) - Equivocation on 'cause'

It seems that several of you accept P1.

What do we mean by 'cause'. It is a metaphysical concept (not scientific). Here is the intro paragraph in Wikipedia:

Quote:
Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past (more precise: none lie in its future). An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

That's the definition we will use for any point so we can avoid equivocating (Mathilda).

The reasons people generally think that everything that begins to exists has a cause is:

A. Something cannot come from nothing.
B. If something can came from nothing, why don't things pop into existence all the time? Why don't objects just appear? Why is it that only universes appear from nothing? What property of 'nothing' favors universes and not, say, ham sandwiches. That's a rhetorical question because 'nothing' cannot have properties.
C. Common sense and science has constantly verified and never falsified this principle. This metaphysical concept is taken to be as a true feature of reality and is the cornerstone of the philosophy of science that this is how reality works.
Facepalm Dodgy 
I'll break this section apart point by point and maybe then you can understand what a lot of us mean, but at this point, I honestly think just pointing a camera at my ugly mug and SAYING it to you would be better, since typing it seems to do nothing for you.

A. The only intellectually HONEST thing you can say is this "Within the Universe itself, nothing that I know of comes from nothing." To say ANYTHING ELSE and worse yet, to say that this law somehow dictates a region before time and space ("prior (whatever that means)" to the Universe) is intellectually DISHONEST. You seem hard stuck in your belief that something MUST have a cause, despite the fact that numerous people have painstakingly walked you through why that DOES NOT NECCESARILY APPLY.

B. Two simple things: The fact that nothing doesn't cause something now does NOT mean that it didn't in the past, especially when you take into consideration that the laws of the universe that "forbid" nothing from causing something is a property of the universe. Speaking of properties.... The properties of nothing inside of the universe and nothing outside the universe don't have to be the same.... "Nothingness" and its lack of properties is contingent on the properties of the Universe. I gave you two theories as to why nothing doesn't arise stuff now. You seemed to have purposefully ignored it.

C. I touched on common sense in my post. I talked about how reality isn't shackled to common sense, but rather its the other way about. Quantum Mechanics doesn't adhere to common sense.  Particle-Wave Duality didn't adhere to common sense. The Earth being round didn't adhere to common sense. Common sense isn't something you want to rely on when talking about questions of this magnitude.  Onto science, Steve, buddy, I'm convinced you are actively trying to deceive people now. Science doesn't disprove this because science CAN'T. It's outside the scope of what we possibly can know (at least for right now). Your appeal to the authoritative powers of common sense and science is just plain deceptive. It doesn't take a genius to see the things I just laid out.



Quote:@unfogged - Two things.

i. quantum particles do not form uncaused. They are indeterminate, but we know the quantum energy field produced them.
ii. I don't think what you are describing is a category error--unless you are positing there are two kids of causes. It is more of a charge of composition fallacy: What is true of the universe in parts may not be true of the universe as a whole. But we see in © above we appeal to inductive reasoning--we are drawing an inductive inference about reality from a sample of reality. A probablistic conclusion that this is how reality works. This is exactly the same principle that undergirds ALL of science.

SO...Are A, B, and C more likely true that not? I think that is a definite yes. So, P1 seems to be way more probably true than false.

No across the board. You are failing to grasp key concepts and that failure is limiting your understanding. To apply reason and probability to a state prior to those concepts even being properties of reality is like trying to drink a whole pineapple because there might be some juice inside. 


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

Quote:Regarding ex nihilo or ex materia. The distinction is irrelevant to a causal principle. But so we don't equivocate on the phase, when we say "begins to exists" we mean exactly:     x begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists.x could be universes, molecular compounds, cars, people, thoughts, concepts, principles, theories, novels, symphonies. Pretty much any object that contingently exists--whether concrete or abstract.

and LATER...

Notice the two categories of things you mentioned--abstract and tangible (concrete) objects. They do begin to exists each in their own way--different because of the category they belong to (abstract v. concrete), not because you are confused on what "begins to exist" means.

Premise 1's "begins to exist" refers to everything (abstract and concrete). Everything but a first cause belongs to this set.
Premise 2's "begins to exist" is referring to one thing-the universe (concrete). The universe is part of the set above (because it did not cause itself) but it also belongs to the set of "first physical object" -- by definition, a set of 1. It is the membership in this second set that infers the ex nihilo part.

Your ex nihilo/ ex materia distinction has nothing to do with our understanding of what we mean by "begins to exist".

If principle 1 is talking about a different form of "beginning to exist" than pricinple 2 is, then one can not follow from another logically. Your rational here seems circular. If the point of contention is that the Universe doesn't need to be caused (as a concrete item) then principle 1 falls apart because the argument of principle 2 undermines principle 1 by definition.

Essentially: If I were to argue that the Universe doesn't necessitate a cause in the same sense you understand it (which I have), then point one is also false. You would have to prove point one by proving point 2, but hold on now, you are using point 1 to PROVE point 2. and around and around we go.
Deadpan Coffee Drinker

In order for Principle 1 to be uncontested in this instance is IF you make it Ex Materia, in which case you would have to prove that Ex Nihilo fits the same rules (which I would argue you have absolutely no grounds or ability to do so).

In other words, you are still left with the nonsense of trying to connect Principle 1 with Principle 2. The Observations that make Principle 1 a Principle merely are EX MATERIA, in other words, this principle only applies to EX MATERIA unless you prove that it does for EX NIHILO. You have not laid any foundation to do that other than just asserting it does.





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

Quote:IN DEFENSE OF PREMISE 2

2. The universe began to exist.

To avoid what Evie has pointed out, let's define 'universe' as the total physical and/or temporal reality and not just our local universe (which may or may not be all there is). So, it would include any multiverse, or quantum foam or whatever may have existed causally prior to our universe.

So, why should we think it is more likely than not that the universe began to exist:

A. An eternal universe would have an actual infinite series of events stretching in the prior-to direction. There is no such thing an actual infinite number of anything -- including events.  It is illogical to propose it. I'm sure there will be discussion on this so I will leave further explanation when I see the specific objections.

B. AS the video pointed out there are several scientific arguments why there probably is a beginning to our local universe (entropy, second law of thermodynamics, BGV expansion --(which applies to mulitverse theories as well), etc.). If the universe has a beginning, it follows that it had a cause (from P1). I'm sure there will be discussion on this so I will leave further explanation when there are specific objections.

C. The universe does not exist necessarily (as in it could have failed to exist). As such, it must be contingent. Contingent things have causes of their existence.

Therefore reasons to believe P2 is most likely true consists of both the philosophical and the scientific.

A.) There are infinite number of integers that exist.

B) Once more, you are asserting something and missing the counterpoints of anyone else on here to peddle your view. You HAVE not laid any foundation for how the Universe, a phenomena that was created before the advent of things like logic and regression and laws and principles (as we understand them) fits into that definition. You can't just say "Well, it just makes sense," Because as we have talked about, the Universe specifically "before" it, doesn't make sense. 

c) Citation needed, dude. A Universe could have been an inevitability. Also, Contingencies, before the Universe might not necessarily need causes before the universe. You Have to PROVE that it does. 

---------------------
Quote:IN DEFENSE OF CONCLUSION 3

For reference:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. And that cause is God.

If (1) and (2) are probably true, then is simply follows that (3) is probably true.
"Probably", lmao. 

Nope, see for all the reasons I lay out above.

Quote:IN DEFENSE OF CONCLUSION 4

So what is the justification from going from (3) to (4)? If the universe (the totality of all physical existence) has a cause, we can logically infer what properties that cause must have to create the effect. In other words, what would a first cause need to be like.

I submit that all of the following are true of a first cause of the totality of all physical existence (the universe).

A. uncaused (any first cause needs to be logically uncaused)
B. beginningless (to avoide and infinite regression)
C. changeless (otherwise create a sort of metaphysical time and to avoid actual infinite events)
D. timeless (created time)
E. spaceless (created space)
F. immaterial (created all of physical reality)
G. enormously powerful (a universe creatio ex nihilo is quite an ability)
H. and personal
    i) there are two types of causal explanations 1) scientific--in terms of laws operating on initial conditions and 2) personal explanations in terms of agents and volition. The universe cannot have a scientific explanation--there could be no laws acting on initial conditions--there were no initial conditions.
    ii) the only entities that are possibly timeless and immaterial are abstract objects and a consciousness. Abstract objects do not ever stand in causal relations. Numbers, for example, cannot cause something to happen.
    iii) We have a temporal effect from a timeless cause. We have a necessary and sufficient cause which is eternal and an effect which is not. Why isn't the effect just as eternal as the cause? This implies agency.

Looking at this list, it seems very much like the bare bones description of what we all mean when we say God.

A. Anything before the Universe could be uncaused, as the law of causation is part of the universe. 
B. There was no time before The universe, so ANYTHING before then was beginningless.
C. What the Actual Fuck?
D. Time and Space are properties of the Universe, anything before it, even the singularity is timeless
E. See Above.
F. Nope, the only thing we know is that they are not made from matter as we understand matter to be.
G. That's subjective. Standard radioactive decay turns elements into other elements. That's a power we haven't even been able to master. The Magntitude of the effect does not necessarily dictate the magnitude of the cause, and even if it were true, there could be enormously powerful things that aren't God. 

By the Way, Steve, you forgot a couple of other things that are intrinsic to a God, perhaps because the argument doesn't at all prove them, but you are still determined to peddle principle 4.

(Bonus Round)
H. Intelligence/Intention.
I. Supernatural
J Able to influence the Universe, not just create it.

1,2,3 only lead to the possibility of a being called God (if they were true), but 4 seeks to eliminate every other possibility BUT God, which it fails to do miserably. This argument proves nothing, only that the people who still make it don't understand what nothingness is.
The following 2 users Like Atothetheist's post:
  • unfogged, Dānu
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 10:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You still haven't explained how the creator caused Causality.

Or how that statement makes any sense whatsoever.
Reply

Kalam Cosmological Argument 1.0
(12-17-2018, 10:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The ONLY thing we know about is space-time.
We know nothing about any other form or variation of time.

Now you're making sense!
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 1 user Likes EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • LadyforCamus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)