The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[NotBlinded]

You still didn't explain how life got here, you merely assume it showed up somehow. That begs the question, how? You also have not shown that life impacted the environment, you have merely asserted that. That is known as the cum hoc fallacy, assuming that because two things happen simultaneously, that one is the cause of the other.

Did you really just say that?

post hoc fallacy

The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.

 

This is exactly what you do LNC!

 

You say the cause can't be simultaneous with the effect and then you post this...

 

Wishy-washy much?

[Kuroikaze]

Here is a copy of the actual scientific paper on the topic of RNA creation.

 

LNC won't get it, I am sure, but the rest of us might find it an interesting read.

 

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=1ARW8D6W

 

Reality is infinitely more interesting than made up nonsense.

[Kuroikaze]

I like how the headline of your linked article still has the question mark after "First evidence for abiogenesis" and also how it says that "RNA spontaneously forms in lab experiment?{" How is a result of a lab experiment spontaneous? Were not the scientists trying to achieve the results of that spontaneous experiment?

 

You are confusing the use of the term, the experiment was not spontaneous, the resulting formation of RNA, however, WAS. The paper I posted gives full details of how the experiment was preformed, so there is no question that if all of the building blocks of RNA are present RNA can form Naturally in the right environment, the experiment did nothing but attempt to create an environment that could have existed on early earth given what we can indirectly observe of that time period.

 

 

I think that there are a lot of hurdles that need to be overcome with the RNA World hypothesis and the article seems to have overstated the case in saying that some of the precursor molecules have been found in interstellar dust clouds and meteorites. Sure, they have found some trace molecules, but that is far from finding what they would actually need to find.

 

You clearly misread what was said, what they did say was that ALL of the the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites. By the way, these are not very rare materials on earth, thought they could have been more rare on early earth.

 

It does not seem they have ANY hurdles to overcome here, RNA can form through natural processes without interferience from divine beings. Theists have been arguing for more than 100 years that this stage was simply TOO complex to ever happen in a naturalistic manner and you were all wrong.

 

Sour grapes much?

 

Orgel, who is basically responsible for the hypothesis believed that RNA originating on earth was highly unlikely given the conditions of early earth, and thought that it was possible that life could have been seeded from other planets; however, the science was inadequate to prove it. This would also merely push the question back a step as to how that life began.

 

Except this is the opposite of the findings of THIS paper. This paper proved that early life could have formed here and NOT somewhere else as Orgel claimed.

 

Stating that the molecules used in this experiment exist in dust clouds and on meteorites was nothing more than showing that it would not have been surprising to find these same molecules on early earth BEFORE life existed, so as to avoid the claim that some creationists would no doubt make that said molecules would only exist in a place that already had life present.

[LNC]

Empirical evidence is replicable evidence gained by means of

- observation,

- experience, or

- experiment

 

Wikipedia "Empirical"

Merriam-Webster "Empirical"

 

The word "replicable" is emphasized because in scientific terms, an empirical proof or empirical evidence must be capable of being verified or disproved. IOW, other people must be able to perform the same experiment and get the same results.

 

OK, I'll go with most of that. I don't think that repeatability (what you call replicability) is necessary, otherwise, you would have to replicate macroevolution to prove it. I don't think you will be seeing that anytime soon. BTW, repeating macroevolution, for which I don't have a problem, does not equate to repeating macroevolution, which is where the problem lies for the theory.

 

The evidence exists to support the theory, not the event itself. Empirical evidence for a theory is based on the theory's predictive model: "If theory x is true, then we should see phenomenon y." A theory is based on observation, hypothesis, and replicable experimentation.

 

"The Earth appears to be ancient. If the Earth is ancient, then we should see [insert long list of phenomena}\]."

 

"Life appears to have spontaneously arisen from a mixture of chemicals. If this is true, we should see [insert equally long list of phenomena]."

 

Evidence exists for many theories that have later been debunked, so I don't consider that to be a slam dunk for evolution. Also, evidence can often be interpreted to support more than one competing model, due to the limited amount that one may have. Again, I don't think that evolution takes this one, otherwise, we wouldn't continue to be told of "missing links" that have been found. How's that last missing link working out for you? It seems that it didn't last much more than a month before being downplayed.

 

By definition, the "supernatural" can have no empirical evidence. It cannot be replicated through experimentation. Different people's experiences vary wildly. It cannot be reliably observed.

 

Empirical evidence applies to the physical Universe, not to speculative events or beings which cannot be verified independantly.

 

Why do you assume that a supernatural even can have no empirical evidence? I don't see how that follows. If people saw Jesus alive after being three days dead and it cannot be explained naturally, then that would be empirical evidence for a supernatural event. Here is where the repeatability part of your explanation does not hold as history cannot be repeated, yet, we have theories as to how history happened as reconstructed by eyewitness accounts and through examination of other artifacts. Events themselves, however, cannot be repeated as they are by definition, one time occurrences.

 

You are also begging the question in saying that empirical evidence applies only to the physical universe, the question is why must that be the case? If you say that this is the limit, then you are by your definition ruling out anything supernatural and therefore by doing so, trying to disprove the supernatural. That is circular reasoning.

 

"Why" is begging the question - it assumes that there is a purpose to the laws of nature and physics. "How" is the scope of science, and is slowly being answered. Considering that the answer appears to be almost infinitely complex, it appears that we will be answering it for a long, long time to come.

 

Are you saying that the laws of nature have no purpose? If so, how are you defining purpose? It seems that they serve a tremendous purpose as without them we would not exist. But maybe you mean something different in your use of purpose. Why is also in the scope of science and scientists ask the question regularly. Also, science finds it origin in philosophy, so to discount the why question is to redefine science.

 

Now, you say that the "how" question is slowly being answered, could you give some details? If it is infinitely complex, it means that we will never ultimately arrive at the answer, but I assume you are using hyperbole here.

 

1) Where is "out there"? The non-science world? The world of crackpots who put saddles on dinosaurs? The church? 4th and Main? Please clarify.

 

2) I did not claim that abiogenesis is an empirically proven hypothesis. I wrote that there is empirical evidence for the theory, not empirical proof. Congratulations, your straw man falls over nicely.

 

Out there means in the scientific community. To be specific, the origin of life researchers. Do you have information that would indicate otherwise? I would be happy to look at it.

 

Science is not really about proofs as much as probabilities. As far as abiogenesis goes, the probability is still unimpressive.

[bdp]

If people saw Jesus alive after being three days dead and it cannot be explained naturally, then that would be empirical evidence for a supernatural event.

 

...just how many things are wrong with this one little sentence?

[LNC]

OK, I'll go with most of that. I don't think that repeatability (what you call replicability) is necessary, otherwise, you would have to replicate macroevolution to prove it. I don't think you will be seeing that anytime soon. BTW, repeating macroevolution, for which I don't have a problem, does not equate to repeating macroevolution, which is where the problem lies for the theory.

 

I meant to say microevolution above not macroevolution.

 

---BTW, repeating microevolution, for which I don't have a problem, does not equate to repeating macroevolution, which is where the problem lies for the theory.---

[Ouroboros]

OK, I'll go with most of that. I don't think that repeatability (what you call replicability) is necessary, otherwise, you would have to replicate macroevolution to prove it. I don't think you will be seeing that anytime soon. BTW, repeating macroevolution, for which I don't have a problem, does not equate to repeating macroevolution, which is where the problem lies for the theory.

 

I meant to say microevolution above not macroevolution.

 

---BTW, repeating microevolution, for which I don't have a problem, does not equate to repeating macroevolution, which is where the problem lies for the theory.---

It's strange. I can't see what the problem is between micro and macro evolution.

 

Just like micro economics affects macro economics, or letters, words, grammar, and style affects a novel.

 

For instance, if you take 1,000 selected words, you can create several different stories with those words. They are the same on the micro level, but just organized different, and it creates different macro stories.

 

Or a set of digits can be organized either as a segment of pi, or a segment of square-root of 2. It's the digits 0 to 9, yet two different number sequences.

 

Think of the DNA. We have a different strain, different combination, but still our DNA use the exact same proteins as all living organism on this planet. It's the combination that differs, not the blocks. Or think of it as Lego pieces. We use the exact same Lego pieces, just organized different. Micro becomes macro.

[Legion]

I think the whole micro/macro evolution thing is a red herring. I think creationists look at the domestication of various plants and animals and know they’d be fools to deny that these species have been altered over the years. But the only difference between this and natural evolution is that natural selection has been influenced by breeder selection.

[Ouroboros]

I think the whole micro/macro evolution thing is a red herring.

Kind'a.

 

I think the concepts of thinking of macro vs micro is valid, but it's not valid to consider macro detached from micro.

 

Just like a PC can run both Unix and Windows. Same machine, but on macro level it can behave different.

 

To create a schism between the two aspects is a red herring, but there is some justification to allow the two aspects of evolution to be discussed.

 

The difference is trees to forest. The forest exists, and the trees exist too, and they are in joined at the hips, but they're two different aspects of the same reality. The Christians argue that they both exist, but that trees do not make forests. Only God makes forests. Trees can't make forests.

 

I think creationists look at the domestication of various plants and animals and know they’d be fools to deny that these species have been altered over the years. But the only difference between this and natural evolution is that natural selection has been influenced by breeder selection.

Right. If we had ended up as 8 legged spider looking beings, we'd be sitting here typing, with our ergonomically shaped keyboard, about how Xog creates us exactly like this and no one kind of species or universe could exist, since this creation is perfect (with 8 legs and all).

[Shyone]

I think the whole micro/macro evolution thing is a red herring.

Kind'a.

 

I think the concepts of thinking of macro vs micro is valid, but it's not valid to consider macro detached from micro.

 

Just like a PC can run both Unix and Windows. Same machine, but on macro level it can behave different.

 

To create a schism between the two aspects is a red herring, but there is some justification to allow the two aspects of evolution to be discussed.

 

The difference is trees to forest. The forest exists, and the trees exist too, and they are in joined at the hips, but they're two different aspects of the same reality. The Christians argue that they both exist, but that trees do not make forests. Only God makes forests. Trees can't make forests.

 

I think creationists look at the domestication of various plants and animals and know they’d be fools to deny that these species have been altered over the years. But the only difference between this and natural evolution is that natural selection has been influenced by breeder selection.

Right. If we had ended up as 8 legged spider looking beings, we'd be sitting here typing, with our ergonomically shaped keyboard, about how Xog creates us exactly like this and no one kind of species or universe could exist, since this creation is perfect (with 8 legs and all).

Why else would the son of Xog have 8 disciples, an 8 sided Criss-Cross, and there are 8 days in a week? 8 is clearly the perfect number.

 

Hail the Holy Octinity.

[Ouroboros]

Right. If we had ended up as 8 legged spider looking beings, we'd be sitting here typing, with our ergonomically shaped keyboard, about how Xog creates us exactly like this and no one kind of species or universe could exist, since this creation is perfect (with 8 legs and all).

Why else would the son of Xog have 8 disciples, an 8 sided Criss-Cross, and there are 8 days in a week? 8 is clearly the perfect number.

 

Hail the Holy Octinity.

Damn! It's too convincing! I'm a convert. Sign me up for the nearest Holy Octonity Church.

[skepticalme]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

 

2. The Universe began to exist.

 

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

 

Why is it that the Universe needs a cause but God does not? If the Universe is the result of a "First Cause", why does that cause have to be a who, why not a what? This argument doesn't support or refute the existance of God.

 

The universe is a contingent thing just like all material entities are.

 

You are assuming that the universe needed a cause and that immaterial entities exist.

 

God, by definition is a necessary being.

 

You are assuming that god does exist and you are assuming that he is necessary.

 

At some point we need to find a necessary cause for a series of contingent entities.

 

Again, you are assuming that the universe needed a first cause. Everything we know about causality is based upon a linear progression of time from the past to the future. The moment of the Big Bang was T-zero, meaning that time began existing at that moment. You can not follow causality to an imaginary point "before" the BB because "before" did not exist. To develop a model of the conditions outside of the BB we would have to have a way of gathering data from outside of our universe which we have no capability of doing. We know that the first three dimensions or "spacial dimensions" (the x, y, z axis) make up the entirety of space and that the next three, the "temporal dimensions",(a single time line, diverging timelines, and all possible timelines) make up the entirety of time. Since the BB was the origin of both space and time, we can conclude that whatever event, if any, triggered the BB it would have to exist in at least the seventh dimension or higher. We DO NOT interact with the seventh dimension AT ALL. We barely interact with the fourth, experiencing it one point at a time(no pun intended) and that point is what we call "now".

 

I have explained before that if the cause was a what, we should expect that the universe would be much older than it is (in fact, eternally old) as the effect would coincide with the cause.

 

Take a step back and look at that statement. For the universe to be eternally old(which it can't be because that would be infinite time and you would literally have to wait FOREVER to get there), all of that time would had to have elapsed. For example, if the universe was a google years old, a google years would have to elapsed. What happened in between. You're looking at it right now. See, baring a Big Crunch, the universe EVENTUALLY WILL BE a google years old. It just hasn't happened yet. Even if the universe was a google years old you could still ask the same question, "Why isn't it older?" Actually, if the universe WAS a google years old energy would be so diffuse that life, as we know it, would be impossible. You could even go the other way, "Why isn't the universe younger?" Well, if it was TO young, there would be insufficient quantites of heavy elements for life. "See the "Goldilocks" zone. So your question is essentially "Why is now, now?" Since "now" is defined as the moment you are in it is a circular argument, and the answer is, "When else would it be."

 

In other words, an impersonal what could not determine an effect to be triggered later, that would require personal agency.

 

Who says its determined? Another assumption.

 

Actually, the argument does support the existence of God which is why it has been used so effectively in debates with naturalists/materialists.

 

Again it supports NOTHING. You only think it does because you have approached the topic from an unsubstantiated conclusion that god exist to fill a "gap" in our knowledge. Thus, the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

 

By the way, you are debating a naturalist right now, and I assure you, I am quite, unwaivered and unimpressed by this "argument" and I'm an amateur, I don't even have double digit post yet.

[Shyone]

 

Again it supports NOTHING. You only think it does because you have approached the topic from an unsubstantiated conclusion that god exist to fill a "gap" in our knowledge. Thus, the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

 

By the way, you are debating a naturalist right now, and I assure you, I am quite, unwaivered and unimpressed by this "argument" and I'm an amateur, I don't even have double digit post yet.

Double digits or not, I like your style.

[NotBlinded]

Again it supports NOTHING. You only think it does because you have approached the topic from an unsubstantiated conclusion that god exist to fill a "gap" in our knowledge. Thus, the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

 

By the way, you are debating a naturalist right now, and I assure you, I am quite, unwaivered and unimpressed by this "argument" and I'm an amateur, I don't even have double digit post yet.

Nooooo...it can't be! You make too much sense! The horrors!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome stucker.

[LNC]

 

*ahem*

 

"To say that X is the cause of X is the same as to say that X is self-caused and that is illogical."

 

Yet this is precisely what is claimed for "God."

 

Or would you prefer it if we started calling matter the "uncaused cause"? It boils down to the same thing.

 

Non-sequitur. I don't claim that God is self-caused. There is also a difference between the concept of self-causation and something being uncaused (in short, one has a cause and the other does not). God is, by definition, eternal and uncaused, a condition for which matter is incapable according to physical laws.

[Legion]

LNC this is what concerns me about you. You seem to be intelligent, but you're like an agile gymnast wearing a straight jacket.

[LNC]

I submit that the Universe is such an example. I further submit that Big Bang theory explains "how" in mathematical detail that neither one of us are competent to discuss. The Universe exists. As far as can be discerned, it had no "beginning" in the sense of causation.

 

You both answer and negate your answer in the very same post. If we cannot explain the universe before Planck time, then we cannot posit that the universe is a beginningless series of events. You also have the problem of overcoming the issues of an actualized infinite. You are, in essence, positing an infinite series by addition to reach today and that is not possible. You cannot reach an infinite by addition and that is what you are positing. Second, one cannot cross an actualized infinite as there would always be farther to go. I could go on with the logical absurdities that your assertion brings up, but maybe you could try to answer these two first.

 

You said that you were familiar with the Big Crunch. You then demonstrated that you were not, in fact, familiar with the Big Crunch model:

"Yes, I am familiar with the big crunch, how does that explain that we should have a perpetual motion machine (which was my question)? The big crunch better fits with a finite universe model."

 

I merely clarified the Big Crunch model for you.

 

From the above link: "Some theorize that the universe could collapse to the state where it began and then initate another Big Bang, so in this way the universe would last forever, but would pass through phases of expansion (Big Bang) and contraction (Big Crunch)"

 

Consider yourself schooled. You want to argue with the proponents of this model? Be my guest.

 

So, are you saying that we don't experience the 2LOT? How is it that we retain enough usable energy to fuel the next big bang event? Simply pointing to a Wikipedia article that does nothing to explain this problem doesn't help your argument. People theorize all kinds of ideas that never make it off the paper in their office, it takes a valid model to move beyond that point and I don't see one in this case. It seems that the data is showing that the universe is expanding at increasing velocity and that the rubber band effect may not even be possible. Do you have data to indicate otherwise? If so, I would like to see it.

 

You are misusing the word "beginning," apparently because you do not comprehend the First Cause postulate, the concept of Planck time, or anything at all about the theoretical nature of space/time on the quantum level.

 

You cannot have a "beginning" in the sense that you are using the word if you do not already have time. Using words like "beginning" and "cause" in the classic sense is meaningless when applied to the concept of a timeless singularity. This is why I say that you do not appear to have understood what you have read about the Big Bang, the space/time continuum, or indeed much else that we have been discussing here. Your responses indicate a fairly common misunderstanding which attempts to fit the square peg of quantum theory into the round hole of classical physics.

 

Are you saying that it is impossible for time to begin? That one has to have time for time to begin? That is fallacious. What you are saying, in essence, is that you already need a beginning to have a beginning. Can you justify that philosophically? Do you have some special insight in knowing that beginning doesn't really mean beginning and cause doesn't really mean cause? That sounds more postmodern than philosophically veridical. You need to explain how and from where you come up with these ideas. I think you are reading too much into your particular understanding of quantum.

 

Nice try again. Let's go through this slowly, shall we?

 

You said, and I quote, "Can you show evidence that the universe is not finite?" I replied that this was asking me to prove a negative, which you absurdly denied.

 

If you now wish to change your question to "can you show evidence that the Universe is eternal?" be my guest. But that sort of change starts with a retraction of the original question, and an admission that it was poorly phrased - not with denial that you did, in fact, ask me to prove a negative.

 

This is yet another example of your continual unwillingness to ever admit even the slightest flaw in your arguments. It is reminiscent of some thing . . . let me see . . .

 

Oh, yeah. It's reminiscent of your cowardly refusal to address your embarrassing screwup with regard to Occam's Razor, in which you made a total ass of yourself and then refused to even acknowledge the existence of this thread.

 

Get thee to a university. Your ignorance is abysmal.

 

OK, it seems that you have an excuse for every occasion but not much to back up your assertions. Let me go through this slowly, not finite = eternal, why is that so hard to understand? You didn't want to try to prove a negative, so I gave you a positive assertion to work from, surly you can back up your assertion, can't you? Or, do you want to show me that the negative (not finite) is somehow different from the positive (eternal). If you can't answer the question, I understand. You also seem to hold tightly to your misrepresentation of Occam's razor, which I have given ample evidence to show you that you misrepresented the argument. But again, you can continue to make assertions all you like, it is proving them that seems to get you tangled up.

[LNC]

If God is eternal, there is no need for a cause. God is the original is. Of course, this is untestable. So, boogers.

But also: "eternal" is a temporal word. It has to do with time. If an "eternal" being would exist, then eternal time must exist, i.e. infinite past. The argument for Craig's Kalam is that infinite past time cannot exist, it must have a beginning. Before that beginning, time does not exist. So if Craig is right, then God is not eternal, but non-temporal, i.e. God does not exist before or after, or even now. It's a self-defeating argument. It demands the existence of something which contradicts the premise of why the universe can not have existed the same way.

 

Eternal is a word that we use to understand God's always having existed. However, it doesn't preclude the fact that God existed in a timeless existence causally prior to the universe existing. It is simply a shorthand way for us, finite beings, to understand this concept. However, words that we use don't change God's ontology.

[LNC]

Can you give an example of how an beginningless series of events could exist?

I submit that the Universe is such an example. I further submit that Big Bang theory explains "how" in mathematical detail that neither one of us are competent to discuss. The Universe exists. As far as can be discerned, it had no "beginning" in the sense of causation.

 

Also, if God is "beginningless", and God cuased the event of this Universe, then Kalam is arguing a "beginingless" series of events, since God didn't have a beginning.

 

The Kalam argument is consistently self-refuting.

 

God existed in a timeless, changeless state causally prior to the universe existing. So, Kalam is not positing a beginningless series of "events."

[Ouroboros]

God existed in a timeless, changeless state causally prior to the universe existing. So, Kalam is not positing a beginningless series of "events."

"Prior" does not exist in timeless.

[Legion]

God existed in a timeless, changeless state causally prior to the universe existing. So, Kalam is not positing a beginningless series of "events."

"Prior" does not exist in timeless.

Hans we've said that countless times. The point seems to escape him.

[Ouroboros]

Hans we've said that countless times. The point seems to escape him.

I'm hoping it will eventually burn into his eyes while he's reading it on the screen, so one day he'll wake up from some nightmare and scream "I GOT IT," and then finally realize how ridiculous his argument was.

[LNC]

I have always considered "eternity" to mean something other than "infinite time past and future." Like there's a medium of some sort which is outside of time, and all of time exists within it, and this medium can be seen as the "eternal now."

 

The present moment seems somehow unrelated to the flow of time as we perceive it. What's even more boggling is that we don't actually experience time as a continual flow - we experience it as a set of instant "snapshots," and our brains fill in the gap. Sort of like the way we experience a filmstrip as a series of still shots but our brains tell us it's a single moving picture.

 

If you really want to make your head hurt, try reading this:

 

Subjective Perception of Time and a Progressive Present Moment: The Neurobiological Key to Unlocking Consciousness

 

Quine, Dennett and others would say that this is not possible given naturalism, that the brain fills in between or connects the snapshots of the brain. I am doing research on this topic now and that is the conclusion of two physicalists who research this topic.

[oddbird1963]

God existed in a timeless, changeless state causally prior to the universe existing. So, Kalam is not positing a beginningless series of "events."

"Prior" does not exist in timeless.

Hans we've said that countless times. The point seems to escape him.

Timeless is just the appending of a negative to a positive concept.

 

Changeless is just the appending of a negative to a positive concept.

 

When you just say, essentially, NOT time or NOT change, you are NOT saying anything meaningful.

 

As with the fact that positing an immaterial being is meaningless, it is just meaningless to posit the existence of a timeless, changeless, immaterial being.

 

Until he can describe how such a being can be said to exist, LNC is essentially saying , "Blah blah blah, smickity smackity." His description of God is incoherent.

[bornagainathiest]

God existed in a timeless, changeless state causally prior to the universe existing. So, Kalam is not positing a beginningless series of "events."

"Prior" does not exist in timeless.

Hans we've said that countless times. The point seems to escape him.

Timeless is just the appending of a negative to a positive concept.

 

Changeless is just the appending of a negative to a positive concept.

 

When you just say, essentially, NOT time or NOT change, you are NOT saying anything meaningful.

 

As with the fact that positing an immaterial being is meaningless, it is just meaningless to posit the existence of a timeless, changeless, immaterial being.

 

Until he can describe how such a being can be said to exist, LNC is essentially saying , "Blah blah blah, smickity smackity." His description of God is incoherent.

 

Ah thank you Oddbird!

 

I was wondering when the concept of meaning was going to come up again in this thread.

The two questions I asked LNC on Oct 5 have to do with establishing and defining the meaning of his statements.

I look forward top his reply.

 

BAA.