The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[skepticalme]

You can just as easily turn that around and ask, "Which of the MANY, MANY supernatural creation stories are the correct one and when will we have experimental data to confirm that?" Its easy to shift the burden of proof to someone else. I see many creationist take the position of, "I win by default because your explanations will never satisfy me." Yet they can't answer the same questions that they ask of others. Saying 'god-did-it' is a cop out answer that they use to dodge the hard questions themselves. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know how the universe came to be. There likely won't be an answer in my lifetime. But I won't use that as an excuse to surrender to supernatural explainations. To do so is to draw a conclusion from an unknown. Don't misunderstand, I still WANT to know and will spend the rest of my life looking for the answer, but to say that I do know and that answer is god, well, I would just be lying to myself.

 

I see two possibilities:

 

1. There is a god.

 

2. There is no god.

 

Of those two statements only #2 is falsifiable because you can't prove a negative. So my default position will be 'there is no god' until god presents himself. So far he hasn't.

 

 

You are posing a faulty dilemma and thereby shifting the argument. It is not a matter of which explanation (whether supernatural or natural) best explains it, it is whether any supernatural or natural explanation is sufficient. Given what we know both scientifically and philosophically, I see no viable candidates from a naturalistic perspective as the ones proffered are not even close to being experimentally explained, let alone confirmed. We have 10<SUP>500</SUP> <I>possible</I> explanations, but we don't even know if even one of them is <I>plausible</I>.

 

So which of the supernatural explainations are experimentally demonstrable, proven or even plausible. None. You reject naturalistic explaination based on these criteria but give supernaturalic explainations a free pass though they fail the same test. The differnece is that the natural is known to exist the supernatural is not known to exist, though some people have concluded it does and those conclusions always seem to be based on what we don't know/understand instead of what we do know/understand. Don't misunderstand, there are still scientific frontiers which we have yet to explore and through out history the area beyond those frontiers has been the domain of gods and the supernatural. But those frontiers are expanding and the supernatural has always retreated. People used to believe that the gods were literally in the sky or on top of mountains, but we went to the sky and the tops of mountains and found no gods. Now god exist outside our universe and he will likely be safe there for quite some time. Eventually, assuming humanity survives long enough, we will find a way to explore that frontier as well. And god will retreat, yet again, to just beyond the scope of our vision and the cycle will repeat all over again. Hopefully by then most people will have caught on to this cycle.

 

However, given an all powerful being

 

Your mistake is assuming that is given.

 

who exists outside of time,

 

Again, just beyond the scope of our vision.

 

we can know that it is logically possible

 

You think you know and you think it is logical and that it is possible, though you have proven niether.

 

and given many other arguments for that being's existence,

 

Here you seem to be begging the question in assuming that said arguments are evidence. Always arguments, never evidence. Don't you find that odd?

 

we know that it is plausible.

 

Again, you think you know, though your conclusion is drawn from assumptions that are contingent upon you conclusion.

 

Therefore, explaining the origin of the universe from an intelligent, all powerful being who exists outside of time remains the best explanation.

 

And this concludes the pattern for all your arguments, assumptions based on the conclusion you have assumed; therefore god.

 

You literally said it, "Therefore, explaining the origin of the universe from an intelligent, all powerful being who exists outside of time remains the best explaination god"

 

 

[skepticalme]

Actually, of your two final possibilities regarding God, both are falsifiable.

 

How is god falsifiable?

 

In fact, atheists try to do it all the time.

 

That doesn't mean they are correct in doing so.

 

The question is whether their arguments and evidence carry. So far, I haven't seen one that does.

 

Maybe that is because he is not falsifiable.

 

[LNC]

Wouldn't God's interactions with the physical world appear to us as uncaused events? By your own admission there is no evidence for uncaused events yet you say he does interact.

 

Not to me. I would see certain events as being caused by God, while materialists would simply deny those events (i.e., healings, miracle events in the NT, etc.)

 

Here again you are begging the question in assuming that there is a law-giver.

 

What are the alternatives? Either the laws are necessary or they are contingent. There is no evidence that they are necessary (they could be otherwise), therefore, they are contingent, which begs the question, contingent upon what or whom? So, you are wrong about my begging the question.

 

Again you have assumed causality outside of time and you are assuming the laws of physics outside of space-time.

 

No, I am not assuming the laws of physics outside of space-time, that is something that the physicalist must assume, however, it is not necessary to my explanation. I am assuming that causality pertains to the universe as we know of nothing physical that is uncaused. It is you that must appeal to special pleading to assume that the universe is the only physical existence that needs no cause. Can you give a reason for your special pleading in the case of the universe? Or, do you believe that other physical objects are uncaused as well, and if so, what are they and what evidence do you have for their non-causal existence?

 

Yet you seem to think that we have them figured out enough to say that a purely natural universe is a violation of those laws.

 

We can look backward and say that the laws have been consistent; however, we cannot look forward and make such assessments (see Hume). So, you must either deny the laws of physics and therefore deny science, or you must accept that the universe cannot be explained by natural laws as we know them.

[Shyone]

Wouldn't God's interactions with the physical world appear to us as uncaused events? By your own admission there is no evidence for uncaused events yet you say he does interact.

 

Not to me. I would see certain events as being caused by God, while materialists would simply deny those events (i.e., healings, miracle events in the NT, etc.)

 

Yet you seem to think that we have them figured out enough to say that a purely natural universe is a violation of those laws.

 

We can look backward and say that the laws have been consistent; however, we cannot look forward and make such assessments (see Hume). So, you must either deny the laws of physics and therefore deny science, or you must accept that the universe cannot be explained by natural laws as we know them.

Miracle events in the NT?

 

Matt. 24:24. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible.

 

You wouldn't consider trickery, fraud, illusion? These are the trade of miracle workers today, and "faith healers" in particular.

 

As for something that "cannot be explained", the last explanation would be something "unexplainable." "Mysteries" of science are not little places to put gods. They are the foundation for research and the acquisition of knowledge.

 

The old ploy of taking something unknown and making it into a supernatural event has led to the slaughter of women and men as witches. We're beyond that now, and it's time you caught up with the times.

[LNC]

Hello LNC.

 

Yes, put simply I'm confused and most likely misinterpreting something here. That's why I'm asking for your help in explaining this topic. Perhaps the sticking point is the language used by Wikipedia and Stanford? They seem to be mutually exclusive. Or maybe there's a whole raft of assumptions that I'm making that need to be reviewed? Anyway, I'll try and put it more accurately below.

 

1. Earlier I listed six instances where Wikipedia has attributed various observable effects to the actions of various types of virtual particle. Are there any inaccuracies, misrepresentations or ambiguities in any of these listed instances?

(The content of this question rests upon the assumption that observable effects only apply to real entities, not abstract, conceptual ones. If this assumption is flawed, please say how and why. Thank you.)

 

2. If virtual particles are real entities, but can never be observed, how do they then qualify as 'real', when, presumably, real entities have physical attributes that can be observed?

(The content of this question is based upon the assumption that your words, highlighted in red, mean that if they are not abstract, they are therefore, real. If this is a misreading, I apologize and earnestly request that you clarify the status of the particles in question. Real? Abstract? Something else?)

 

3.Perhaps I'm stuck in a false dichotomy here? E.g., that which is real is therefore observable and that which is not observable is therefore abstract. Is that too simplistic? Once again, any help given to explain would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

p.s.

While I understand that your time may be limited and that you are busy with other things, I believe that the action of referring me back to prior quotes and informing me that I'm mistaken and/or misinterpreting things, does not qualify as adequately meeting the criteria of answering my questions or explaining the topic under discussion. I have no wish for this paragraph to sound peevish or difficult, but I am trying to understand, learn and grow here. If you feel that my future comprehension would be better served by asking others, then please say so and I'll gladly accept your decision and follow that new path. Thanks again.[/color]

 

Hey BAA,

 

I still don't understand how you read this article to say that virtual particles are abstract. It is clear that the author is discussing real particles and not abstract particles in the sense of being non-real entities. He gives his explanation as to why we cannot observe them and it has to do with relational properties of real entities, not with the idea that they are abstract as we commonly think of the word. Even the Wiki article says that we cannot observe virtual particles, so I'm not sure why that is a problem either. In fact, the term "abstract" is never used in his explanation, so you will have to explain where you come up with that concept from his explanation. There is a difference between seeing observable effects of virtual particles and seeing the particles themselves. It sounds as if we are arguing semantics rather than real differences. I hope that helps clear things up.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Thank you for the link. Just so you know, I have studied the topic for a couple of years, so I am not new to the arguments. My problem is rather how to explain my own view and the problems I see within current philosophical reasoning.

 

OK, that is good to hear. Let's explore your view.

 

I hope you read the conclusion in the link you provided:

Questions about God’s relation to time involve many of the most perplexing topics in metaphysics. These include the nature of the fundamental structures of the universe as well as the nature of God’s own life. It is not surprising that the questions are still open even after over two millennia of careful inquiry. While philosophers often come to conclusions that are reasonably settled in their mind, they are wise to hold such conclusions with an open hand.

Meaning, to be a good philosopher, you should not let yourself fall into the "this is now settled, and all is explained" category, which I think you have.

 

My discussion has been focused on making you admit that this issue isn't clear or completely explained, but so far, my impression is that you are convinced and beyond any opposition to your standpoint. According to the conclusion above--from your own link--that is not wise.

 

Another thing you should learn from that article is: There are many different theories. How can that be? If this is logically sound and no criticism can question its soundness, then why are there different views and arguments by the philosophers? If it was a simply 1+1=2 reasoning, wouldn't all philosophers easily agree and finally settle this?

 

I don't hold any position as absolutely settled as that he philosophically untenable; however, we also don't operate in this world as if nothing were unsettled or as if the evidence didn't point us in one direction over the other as that would leave us paralyzed.

 

Now, are you asking me whether this issue is settled beyond a shadow of a doubt? I would say that nothing falls into that category. However, if you ask whether there is good evidence to conclude that it is more than likely that God exists, I would say that there is. There is a difference between "clear" and "completely explained." I am always open to evaluating evidence for and against my viewpoints, which is why I am willing to interact with so many of you who hold opposing viewpoints to mine. However, in my posts I never make absolute statements that God exists, I simply said that it is not problematic to hold a position that God could exist outside of time, which was in response to your post #341 where you stated:

But I do see the problem how God being a "thing" and existing before Time-Zero.

I simply said that this was not a problematic position, and it is not.

 

There are many different theories to explain many phenomena in this world, yet that does not negate the phenomena's existence. Why do you find it problematic that there are many theories to explain how God could exist outside of time and space? I think you are building a straw man argument here as I never said that God's existence was absolutely provable or that it was absolutely proved that God exists outside of time. I simply said that it wasn't problematic philosophically that God could exist outside of time, and it isn't.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Robert Kane, but he calls it "self-forming actions." I have also seen some philosophers use the term self-determination.

 

"What is important for free will, proponents of this argument claim, is not simply that the causal chain for an agent’s volition goes through the agent, but that it originates with the agent. In other words, an agent acts with free will only if she originates her action, or if she is the ultimate source or first cause of her action [see Kane (1998)]" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/).

 

Thanks for posting this, but I wonder whose case you are trying to make, mine or yours? You are really arguing my case as the agent is responsible for the effect using his/her free will. This is also a strong argument against naturalism as naturalism has no place for free will - all is ultimately determined in a closed naturalistic system. But, let's read on...

 

Thomas Reid expressed it this way: "I grant, then, that an effect uncaused is a contradiction, and that an event uncaused is an absurdity. The question that remains is whether a volition, undetermined by motives, is an event uncaused. This I deny. The cause of the volition is the man that willed it."

 

Here is someone trying to be true to his naturalistic presupposition. There is no free will, only will determined by a causal chain (motives).

 

In other words, man causes his own free will (as a noun) to will (as a verb).

 

Yet, that is not what Reid was arguing, so I am not sure how you come to this conclusion. One cannot cause their own free will. That would be like saying that one day my computer caused its own free will...it will never happen.

 

The question is: what causes a free-will agent to make a choice?

 

Is the cause external (deterministic)?

 

Or is the cause internal (self-caused)?

 

Or is it un-caused (non-deterministic, random choice)?

 

Is God a free-will agent?

 

What causes God to "will"? In other words, when God makes a decision, a free-will choice, does he do it from an infinite regression of logical reasoning, i.e. caused by God (God causes God to ...), or are his decisions completely random events that he has no control over?

 

I think that all three of your options are using confuse language that could be equivocated. The first option is logically contradictory as determinism is opposite of libertarian free will. The second option should better read, "agent cause" and it could be confused with the effect causing itself, when it is the agent that causes the effect. Option three is also confusing as the effect is not uncaused, it is the result of the agent's choice and action. To your question about God, the answer is "yes," God is a free agent.

 

I think you are confusing free will with determinism. A free choice is not determined by a series of past events, whether that is logical reasoning or some other past events. God does not require logical reasoning as he is omniscient and doesn't require what-if scenarios in order to act. Neither are his actions random in nature. God sees all true propositions and his actions are completely free and not predetermined in any way by past events. You have posed a faulty dilemma in your question as there is this third option. Hope that helps

 

LNC

[skepticalme]

Wouldn't God's interactions with the physical world appear to us as uncaused events? By your own admission there is no evidence for uncaused events yet you say he does interact.

 

Not to me. I would see certain events as being caused by God, while materialists would simply deny those events (i.e., healings, miracle events in the NT, etc.)

 

A supernaturalist would simply deny the physical explainations of those same events.

 

Here again you are begging the question in assuming that there is a law-giver.

 

What are the alternatives? Either the laws are necessary or they are contingent. There is no evidence that they are necessary (they could be otherwise), therefore, they are contingent, which begs the question, contingent upon what or whom? So, you are wrong about my begging the question.

 

You could just as easily say that there is no evidence that they are contingent, therefore they are necessary. You just picked that one because you want support for your claim. There is no evidence for either. Even if they are contingent, why do you assume that god is that contingency? You are still begging the question.

 

Again you have assumed causality outside of time and you are assuming the laws of physics outside of space-time.

 

No, I am not assuming the laws of physics outside of space-time, that is something that the physicalist must assume, however, it is not necessary to my explanation. I am assuming that causality pertains to the universe as we know of nothing physical that is uncaused. It is you that must appeal to special pleading to assume that the universe is the only physical existence that needs no cause. Can you give a reason for your special pleading in the case of the universe? Or, do you believe that other physical objects are uncaused as well, and if so, what are they and what evidence do you have for their non-causal existence?

 

This is what you said;

 

"Sure, but then again you are proposing that the universe came into existence uncaused, which would be a violation of the laws of physics."

 

What pre-universe laws of physics were violated?

 

Causality is dependant upon time. Time did not exist before the universe. Time is a product of the universe. Therefore causality is a product of the universe. Causality can not exist outside of the universe. Assuming the universe needed a cause is also assuming causality outside of the universe. Therefore that is a faulty assumption.

 

You asked if I believe that physical object can be uncaused. Well which ones WERE caused. Since the BB no new matter/energy has come into existence. Matter/energy can be neither created or destroyed, just shuffled around. To assume that matter must be caused is to also assume that matter can be created, because reproducing that cause would generate new matter. Since matter can not be created it also can not be caused. So, in a sense, ALL matter is uncaused. It is only the post-BB interactions of said matter that need cause, because as I stated before, that is a product of time.

 

Yet you seem to think that we have them figured out enough to say that a purely natural universe is a violation of those laws.

 

We can look backward and say that the laws have been consistent; however, we cannot look forward and make such assessments (see Hume).

 

Yes, they do appear quite consistant. So consistant, if fact, that it appears that no supernatural entity ever altered them in an attempt to influence the outcome of the universe. Unless you want to argue that god created a natural universe, but that would violate every argument you have about a universe with supernatural origins.

 

So, you must either deny the laws of physics and therefore deny science, or you must accept that the universe cannot be explained by natural laws as we know them.

 

Using my argument you must either deny god or except a natural universe.

 

 

You're not the only one who can play these logic games.

[Ouroboros]

But I do see the problem how God being a "thing" and existing before Time-Zero.

I simply said that this was not a problematic position, and it is not.

It still is a problem.

 

Even if you call God non-temporal, to exist before time, is to say that time existed before time came to exist. Which is a contradiction. To "exist before" is an invalid phrase when it comes to time-zero.

 

It's like saying that 1/x has a solution for x=0. It does not. It doesn't matter how much you want it to, it will still not have a solution. You can call the solution Bob, 99.Glue, or +/-Nillywilly, or even ∞, and they're still not solutions for 1/x.

 

There are many different theories to explain many phenomena in this world, yet that does not negate the phenomena's existence. Why do you find it problematic that there are many theories to explain how God could exist outside of time and space?

What I find problematic is not your argument that God exists, but that God existed BEFORE TIME was CREATED. To say that something was before time started means that time started before time started, which is ridiculous.

 

The only solution to the conundrum is to realize that time existed way before the universe. Time didn't start with the universe. It must have started before the universe. Then we're starting to get somewhere. But unfortunately, that's not the case with Craig's Kalam, it argues that time must have started when the Universe started, and as such, nothing, not even God, existed BEFORE TIME.

 

I think you are building a straw man argument here as I never said that God's existence was absolutely provable or that it was absolutely proved that God exists outside of time.

But you are. You are arguing vehemently that we are wrong in every aspect. Even when we bring up alternative ideas from science you demand a higher level of proof from them than you do for your argument.

 

Considering that you deny any kind of natural explanation, only because they don't fit your belief and that they can't be supported by tangible proof and mathematical models, but at the same time tangible proof and mathematical models are lacking for God. You are putting God on a pedestal, and spitting on any other theory, only because that's what you believe.

 

Honestly, if God exists, I would not be afraid to believe again, if it was evident, but it is not. However, it is evident that there are many ideas to explain the beginning of the universe, and not one of them is settled, not one of them proven, not even God.

 

The God explanation requires a belief that the power or phenomenon that started the Universe must be some kind of soul or sentient being, and I find that quite hard to understand. Why? Why does the power that started the Universe have to be some form of thinking entity? Just because time-space had to had a beginning, that doesn't demand a personal/thinking God. It only demands a powerful source.

 

 

I simply said that it wasn't problematic philosophically that God could exist outside of time, and it isn't.

I find it very problematic. It begs the question: can something exist without time? There's no answer to that, only an assumption, and that warrant requires a backing, which I haven't heard from you yet. How can something exist without time, and why does this timeless existence have to be a thinking entity?

 

Basically, to give a proper support the the Kalam argument, you have to provide backing to these warrants:

 

1) how can a being exist without time?

2) things can exist before time began to exist.

3) the first cause is not only a powerful source, but is also a personal God who thinks, reason, argue, plan, have needs, have wants

4) all other theories are unaccepted until proven, while God is accepted until unproven

 

And I'm sure I have more.

 

The last one is actually more of a qualifier for the claim than a warrant, but take it for what it is.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for posting this, but I wonder whose case you are trying to make, mine or yours? You are really arguing my case as the agent is responsible for the effect using his/her free will. This is also a strong argument against naturalism as naturalism has no place for free will - all is ultimately determined in a closed naturalistic system. But, let's read on...

The answer I gave was in response to your claim that self-causation does not exist, that it is logically incomprehensible. And I told you it is not, and I have done so by providing you an argument from a philosopher that free will is a form of self-causation.

 

I don't know if free will is self-caused or not, but my argument is not for or against my standpoint regarding free will when I respond to the question if self-causation can be logical or not.

 

You have to maintain a very fine line between the points of our discussion. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time.

 

Yet, that is not what Reid was arguing, so I am not sure how you come to this conclusion.

He did too. Either you are not reading what he said, or you are intentionally trying to misconstrue things just to gain points in the argument. Lying isn't a good way of getting to the truth. You better step up and become more honest in how you assess arguments.

 

This phrase: "The cause of the volition is the man that willed it."

 

Translated: the power for a man to will something came from the man when he willed it. It is self-caused.

 

One cannot cause their own free will.

That's what Reid said. My whole argument is about self-causation here, not free will.

 

You're throwing a red herring argument in here because I'm not arguing about free will at the moment, but about self-causation. Get your head straight.

 

That would be like saying that one day my computer caused its own free will...it will never happen.

That's what Reid argued.

 

So let's go into that specific area then. What causes you to will something? God? God makes you use your volition? God is the first cause of ever willed action?

 

I think that all three of your options are using confuse language that could be equivocated.

I think you are building straw-man arguments each time you throw in your logical contradictions. It's not a confused language, and you know it, but since you can't really argue your points coherently, you have to point finger. And you constantly do that. Everyone else are doing some kind of fallacy according to you, even when they don't. You create false accusations, so you can put people down. You want to be superior and you enforce it by making these false accusations. It's very typical for an apologist to do this. It's a form of distraction, a red herring. And in the process your using the fallacy of stacking the cards, to arrange the data and arguments to fit your agenda. It's very dishonest. You can do better than that.

 

The first option is logically contradictory as determinism is opposite of libertarian free will. The second option should better read, "agent cause" and it could be confused with the effect causing itself, when it is the agent that causes the effect. Option three is also confusing as the effect is not uncaused, it is the result of the agent's choice and action. To your question about God, the answer is "yes," God is a free agent.

You're proving that you're not capable of understanding anyone else but your own little set of favorite sources. My questions are valid, and your response only proves that you're not on the level to argue these things.

 

I think you are confusing free will with determinism. A free choice is not determined by a series of past events, whether that is logical reasoning or some other past events. God does not require logical reasoning as he is omniscient and doesn't require what-if scenarios in order to act. Neither are his actions random in nature. God sees all true propositions and his actions are completely free and not predetermined in any way by past events.

His choices come from himself. God is causing his own choices. I'm not talking about determinism. God is the source of God's choices. God is God's own God. He is a self-causing agent.

 

You have posed a faulty dilemma in your question as there is this third option. Hope that helps

And I think your response is a red herring and card stacking, besides that there are lot of begging the question in your material.

 

I hope that helps you.

[LNC]

And herein lies the problem.

 

Your argument states: Object A exists before time.

 

The word "before" is a temporal or spatial preposition.

 

If time was a function, t, and a specific time was denoted t(x), and we decided that time started at t(0), or in mathematical terms, the domain is (0,∞), and also to denote something to be "before" something else with t(x-1), i.e. t(x-1) is time before t(x), then we have the following problem:

 

God exists at t(-1).

 

But since we already stated that the domain is (0,∞), -1 is an invalid value. t(-1) does not exist. It has no solution.

 

On the other hand, if there is a solution, perhaps the solution is an imaginary number instead of a real number. But then how could God be said to be a being, entity, person or given a masculine pronoun? All those attributes are related to space-time and real things.

 

 

---

 

 

A list of articles refuting the Cosmological Argument: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html

 

I am not going to keep going around this argument. I have made myself clear and don't know how to make it clearer that I speak in terms of causally prior not temporally prior. You are setting up a straw man argument rather than dealing what the argument that I am making and I don't believe it is profitable for either of us to continue down this path.

 

BTW, there is no such thing as t(-1) it is a logical absurdity which is why I don't make such arguments.

 

I am also aware of the list of articles that attempt to refute Kalam, do you find any particular arguments compelling? If so, why don't you post those particular points and we can discuss them.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

And herein lies the problem.

 

Your argument states: Object A exists before time.

 

The word "before" is a temporal or spatial preposition.

 

If time was a function, t, and a specific time was denoted t(x), and we decided that time started at t(0), or in mathematical terms, the domain is (0,∞), and also to denote something to be "before" something else with t(x-1), i.e. t(x-1) is time before t(x), then we have the following problem:

 

God exists at t(-1).

 

But since we already stated that the domain is (0,∞), -1 is an invalid value. t(-1) does not exist. It has no solution.

 

On the other hand, if there is a solution, perhaps the solution is an imaginary number instead of a real number. But then how could God be said to be a being, entity, person or given a masculine pronoun? All those attributes are related to space-time and real things.

 

 

---

 

 

A list of articles refuting the Cosmological Argument: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html

 

I am not going to keep going around this argument. I have made myself clear and don't know how to make it clearer that I speak in terms of causally prior not temporally prior. You are setting up a straw man argument rather than dealing what the argument that I am making and I don't believe it is profitable for either of us to continue down this path.

 

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore

 

 

BTW, there is no such thing as t(-1) it is a logical absurdity which is why I don't make such arguments.

 

I am also aware of the list of articles that attempt to refute Kalam, do you find any particular arguments compelling? If so, why don't you post those particular points and we can discuss them.

 

LNC

I'm wondering if you can tell me the name of the fallacy in your last sentence. I'm having problems finding it.

 

I note the following characteristics:

 

1. You dismiss all of the articles as "attempts to refute Kalam" without specifics.

2. You ignore specific references in the post and do not address them except to make other demands.

3. You demand that Ouroboros produce specifics when the specifics are contained in the reference in the post.

 

I'm sure the situation could be rectified if you address at least the summaries of the criticisms, some of which I have reproduced below:

 

A crucial premise of William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument (KCA) is that the universe began to exist. Craig supplements the KCA itself with a secondary argument for this crucial premise. That secondary argument, in turn, presumes that an actual infinite cannot exist. In this essay, Jeffrey T. Allen argues that if an omniscient God exists, the premise that an actual infinite cannot exist is false, as an omniscient God would need to know an infinite number of truths about himself. Thus Craig's defense of his KCA appears to entail a premise that contradicts the conclusion of his KCA. As long as Craig does not offer some alternative defense of the KCA premise that the universe began to exist, and unless he can justify limiting to the physical world his KCA premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause, he must either concede that it is false that an actual infinite cannot exist, or else that God does not exist.

 

The N-KCA purportedly shows the factual impossibility of a denumerably infinite set of coexisting concrete entities; and that there would be such a set were an infinite temporal series of events to obtain because each existing substance bears its own necessarily permanent temporal marks and those of its ancestors. Nowicki, professing the A-theory of time, nevertheless maintains that truth-makers of past-event propositions are not tensed facts, according to some correspondence theory of truth, but rather the temporal marks borne by existing substances.

 

Three possible flaws in the Kalam cosmological argument are discussed. 1) If God is the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist, then the Kalam argument has the effect (if not the intention) of begging the question. 2) Kalam's logic regarding the impossibility of an actual infinity disproves the existence of an actually infinite God. 3) Since the universe is not a member of itself, the Kalam argument is illogically comparing apples and oranges.

 

Craig has committed the fallacy of hasty generalization in his assumption that if all current naturalistic interpretations of a first cause fail, it follows that the first cause is supernatural.

 

"The kalam argument is not as simple and straightforward as it initially appears to be. Its underpinnings are at least as complicated, and at least as controversial, as those of any other cosmological argument. When applied to the beginning of time, the principle that whatever begins to exist must have a cause is not clearly true. And even if it could be shown that the first event in the history of the universe has a cause it is not at all obvious that this cause must be a person."

[Ouroboros]

I am not going to keep going around this argument. I have made myself clear and don't know how to make it clearer that I speak in terms of causally prior not temporally prior. You are setting up a straw man argument rather than dealing what the argument that I am making and I don't believe it is profitable for either of us to continue down this path.

You are talking about a causal "before" but not a temporal "before"? How is that even possible? Basically you are solving the problem of first cause, time, and space, and all these things by believing that some invented redefinition of a word is the answer.

 

I can understand how imaginary numbers solve the problem of negative radicals, but the truth is, imaginary numbers aren't real. Get it?

 

BTW, there is no such thing as t(-1) it is a logical absurdity which is why I don't make such arguments.

To say that something existed before time zero is to say that it existed at the point in time of time -1.

 

If you use the word "before," you either mean it as a temporal reference or a spatial reference.

 

Your imaginary non-temporal-causal-"before" is just a non-existing construct to solve a conundrum.

 

You are consistently making the fallacy of begging the question. How can you justify that a non-temporal-but-causal "before" exists? What is your backing for that warrant? How can you assume that it exists without having anything to go on?

 

I am also aware of the list of articles that attempt to refute Kalam, do you find any particular arguments compelling? If so, why don't you post those particular points and we can discuss them.

I consider Kalam and all the other alternative ideas to be on equal level. None of them is an absolute answer. None of them is the final solution.

 

For me, the first cause could potentially be right, but, here's a big but, the solution is not a personal/sentient supernatural spirit, to me, it would make more sense if there is a non-temporal/infinite multiverse, or perhaps we should call it superverse. It answers the question just as much as saying God. To jump from "First Cause" to "Santa Cause" is seriously begging the question.

 

The only reason why defenders of that argument believe it is a personal God, is because they believe a spirit with free will, complete with memory, intelligence, will, and ethics, is the only supernatural, non-temporal, infinite "thing." But how the hell can you know that? That kind of thinking is based on answering the question before the question is stated. We do not know. That's the answer. To answer Jesus, Allah, or Krishna, is to jump to conclusions. And the Kalam argument IS faulty, that's a fact, but I have realized that people blinded by religion can see beyond their own conviction of how gloriously wonderful that argument is. It comforts them, and helps them justify their belief, so they can't let it go.

 

I used to believe in the Cosmological Argument, 20 years ago, but I spent some good time thinking about the ins and outs of it, and I realized I could not build my belief or faith on a shaky argument alone. And I know you don't either. But don't think for one second that by you defending this argument you will somehow like me to your side. It stopped being an argument for God's existence at about 15 years ago, while I still was Christian.

 

But I have a different belief today. Unfortunately for us both, I know the distance between us is far to great for us to even begin to analyze what I really believe.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks Shyone.

 

The problem is that I read many of those articles a long time ago, and the ideas stuck, but I don't remember where I read them. So in most of my discussion, I try to argue the points but without producing the quotes. It's interesting to see when you quote these things that I'm arguing exactly those points, over, and over again, but to no avail. My words are lost in the void of religious darkness.

[ChristianHumanist]

The Kalam argument is an attempt to pose the cosmological argument in modern dress post the Big Bang but it is an exercise in sophistry that is not likely to have much appeal outside a certain circle of traditionalists. It depends upon premises that stretch incredulity and the argument is circular. I don't have either the time or the inclination to tackle a response line by line.

 

But, for the sake of argument, let's see how far we get with Eliot's conclusion that the cause “must also be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent.” Whoa! His argument only works for “uncaused, beginningless, changeless” but he has not demonstrated that his argument goes beyond that. When he gets to “enormously powerful” and “enormously intelligent” he is way out beyond his arguments into something that begins to look like a god made in man's image, which of course is what he has set out to prove, and which demonstrates the circularity of his argument.

 

The best argument against this—and similar—alleged proof of god, is what you can reasonably say about the god that you have proved. That god does not look at all like the Christian god but rather like a depersonalized first cause. Put another way, the argument essentially is that whatever underlies the big bang is given the name “god” but from a theological standpoint that is not really very satisfactory or comforting.

 

http://www.christianhumanist.net

[Ouroboros]

The Kalam argument is an attempt to pose the cosmological argument in modern dress post the Big Bang but it is an exercise in sophistry that is not likely to have much appeal outside a certain circle of traditionalists. It depends upon premises that stretch incredulity and the argument is circular. I don't have either the time or the inclination to tackle a response line by line.

 

But, for the sake of argument, let's see how far we get with Eliot's conclusion that the cause “must also be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent.” Whoa! His argument only works for “uncaused, beginningless, changeless” but he has not demonstrated that his argument goes beyond that. When he gets to “enormously powerful” and “enormously intelligent” he is way out beyond his arguments into something that begins to look like a god made in man's image, which of course is what he has set out to prove, and which demonstrates the circularity of his argument.

 

The best argument against this—and similar—alleged proof of god, is what you can reasonably say about the god that you have proved. That god does not look at all like the Christian god but rather like a depersonalized first cause. Put another way, the argument essentially is that whatever underlies the big bang is given the name “god” but from a theological standpoint that is not really very satisfactory or comforting.

 

DAMN! You're hitting it hard from get-go CH!

 

I love it!!! Well said.

[LNC]

God is the physical universe and caused itself to exist. No lawgiver, it is the laws. I'm saying it this way in order to get you to understand what I'm saying when I question you about what is matter. There is nothing but God.

 

So, you are a pantheist (or a panentheist)? How do you account for evil if all is God? Is God personal or merely a force by your reckoning?

 

Sure it does. It's in your book.

 

Not that I have read. Maybe you could let me know to what you are referring (that God changes his mind).

 

Here you admit that your idea of God can decide to do something different any time.

 

I'm not saying the universe its uncaused; I'm saying it is self-caused. The Self is It. The "Poof is in the pudding."

 

I'm not sure what the significance of your statement is. Yes, God is a free agent and can act when he wants, why is that a problem for you? How is self-caused different from uncaused. If the universe doesn't exist, then what is it that causes it to exist? It would appear that nothing caused it to exist as there was nothing until it existed. It seems that it would have to first exist to cause itself to exist, but then it wouldn't cause itself to exist as it already existed to cause its existence. See the logical circularity that you get trapped into?

 

This is possible from the "physical" realm if this "Supernature" is nature itself. Nothing would be violated, but can you honestly say that making the earth stand still to make it appear as if the sun stopped is not a violation of the laws of physics?

 

It violates the law of identity to say that the Supernatural is natural as supernatural means beyond nature. So, your statement is false by definition. The Bible doesn't explicitly say how God made the day seem longer. I don't believe that God stopped or slowed the rotation of the planet in doing so, however.

 

No, my immaterial reality is reality itself. Matter is waves and particles or wavicles dancing of their own accord, IMO. This is where you and the materialist are the same. Both of you see matter as innert, dead "things" as if things actually exist in nature but in reality, there is nothing but processes. Show me a thing LNC. The only difference between you two is you have an outside force animating dead matter and they have dead matter being fully automatic than runs from stupid forces.

 

Yes, all things have an immaterial nature to them. I would call myself a non-dualist, but anyway...

 

You simply do not know what I believe and therefore, fill in your own fanciful assumptions into that gap. A sort of "NotBlinded" in the gaps theory as I see it. Interesting, you call yourself a non-dualist, yet you see both a material and immaterial realm. How do you work that out and stay consistent?

 

LNC

[Shyone]

The Bible doesn't explicitly say how God made the day seem longer. I don't believe that God stopped or slowed the rotation of the planet in doing so, however.

 

LNC

How about one of those "Man, this was a long day!" type things where ones perception becomes interpreted as reality?

 

I mean, they weren't exactly wearing watches, were they?

 

Most of the soldiers were busy hacking away at the fleeing Amorites, slaughtering them in God's name, and I'll bet they weren't really paying attention to the time of day.

 

And, don't you wonder about those hailstones. "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." He causes the sun to rise? Not the earth to rotate? Oh, well.

 

About the hail stones. They require stormy weather, no? At least cloudy? So that one could not see the sun?

 

I think it's just a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

[NotBlinded]

God is the physical universe and caused itself to exist. No lawgiver, it is the laws. I'm saying it this way in order to get you to understand what I'm saying when I question you about what is matter. There is nothing but God.

 

So, you are a pantheist (or a panentheist)? How do you account for evil if all is God? Is God personal or merely a force by your reckoning?

Sheesh this is old, but I'll try to chase that train of thought back down.

 

I would call myself a mystic.

 

What is evil? Are bacteria evil? I have no idea what evil is on a grander scale.

 

Sure it does. It's in your book.

 

Not that I have read. Maybe you could let me know to what you are referring (that God changes his mind).

Maybe you could tell me what I am referring to since this post is so old and I don't want to go back and refresh my mind.

 

Oh, that God changes his mind? Do I really have to go searching? No...google it.

 

Here you admit that your idea of God can decide to do something different any time.

 

I'm not saying the universe its uncaused; I'm saying it is self-caused. The Self is It. The "Poof is in the pudding."

 

I'm not sure what the significance of your statement is. Yes, God is a free agent and can act when he wants, why is that a problem for you? How is self-caused different from uncaused. If the universe doesn't exist, then what is it that causes it to exist? It would appear that nothing caused it to exist as there was nothing until it existed. It seems that it would have to first exist to cause itself to exist, but then it wouldn't cause itself to exist as it already existed to cause its existence. See the logical circularity that you get trapped into?

Oh come on LNC. It's not a problem for me to have the supernatural be natural. It's you that has a problem with separating the parts of nature and calling it supernatural.

 

Again, you are looking for a cause that is external to itself based on your worldview that material is dead matter. This is why it appears circular to you. You will never find a cause without an effect and vise-versa. They are one.

This is possible from the "physical" realm if this "Supernature" is nature itself. Nothing would be violated, but can you honestly say that making the earth stand still to make it appear as if the sun stopped is not a violation of the laws of physics?

 

It violates the law of identity to say that the Supernatural is natural as supernatural means beyond nature. So, your statement is false by definition. The Bible doesn't explicitly say how God made the day seem longer. I don't believe that God stopped or slowed the rotation of the planet in doing so, however.

This statement is false.

 

Does the above statement violate anything? See how easy that was?

No, my immaterial reality is reality itself. Matter is waves and particles or wavicles dancing of their own accord, IMO. This is where you and the materialist are the same. Both of you see matter as innert, dead "things" as if things actually exist in nature but in reality, there is nothing but processes. Show me a thing LNC. The only difference between you two is you have an outside force animating dead matter and they have dead matter being fully automatic than runs from stupid forces.

 

Yes, all things have an immaterial nature to them. I would call myself a non-dualist, but anyway...

 

You simply do not know what I believe and therefore, fill in your own fanciful assumptions into that gap. A sort of "NotBlinded" in the gaps theory as I see it. Interesting, you call yourself a non-dualist, yet you see both a material and immaterial realm. How do you work that out and stay consistent?

 

LNC

Ouch...did I touch a nerve?

 

I also see night and day and know that they constitute one day.

 

You are slacking LNC.

[LNC]

No, you said he's personal because he chose to create and I questioned that. I didn't say anything about it being an impersonal mechanism. I don't believe that at all. I'm saying God didn't have to think about creating in order to create. Thoughts are linear and must proceed in this way in order to be processed. It just happens and it continues to happen every second of every day. We are what "God" is doing and we are it. So, it's not personal in the way you think it is, as in linear thoughts about every person, every electron that jumps an orbit, but how much more personal can you get to be this very essence itself?

 

Let me refine my statement as I was speaking of the cause of the universe being personal as a will would have been involved in causing the universe to begin in the finite past as opposed to the universe being infinitely old in the past, which it does not appear to be. So, I am not using this as evidence to say that God is personal, but that the cause of the universe happens to be a personal agent. A being that is omniscient and outside of time does not require linear thinking as that being would know all facts simultaneously. I believe that you are conflating our way of thinking as finite beings with that of an infinite being. This means that God can be personal in the way that I think he is.

 

LNC, there are processes in our brains that happen without us thinking about it. All you are stating here is a very small area of consciousness that could be called concentrated awareness. I am speaking of a greater area of being. This is where the personal parts come in, but behind all this, there is something else operating that we aren't aware of, yet we are it. Do you understand what I'm saying yet?

 

I don't argue that we have activities that go on at a subconscious level; however, that does not speak to the fact that we have conscious activity that is not adequately explained by being impersonal creatures. Whether it is a small area of conscious or not (and I don't know that this has been clearly quantified), is beside the fact. There is a first person subjectivity to us that has intrinsic intentionality that, I don't believe, is adequately explained by material processes alone.

 

Yes, I like it too and studied some myself and I have ran my "mouth" continually in your other thread. How can you not remember me in that thread. I talked to you a lot about it. I'm hurt.

 

And yes, your conclusions are just as silly to me as mine are to you I'm sure.

 

Sorry, they all start to run together in my "mind". At least we can continue to discuss these ideas rationally and hopefully come closer in our thinking.

 

LNC

[NotBlinded]

Sorry, they all start to run together in my "mind". At least we can continue to discuss these ideas rationally and hopefully come closer in our thinking.

 

LNC

I can understand that. I was just teasing.

 

For some reason, I've grown tired of discussing this (hence the snippiness in my thread right above yours here). I don't know if it's just me going through another of my phases, or if I've just run out of things to say. Anyway, I'll continue reading and hopefully something will hit me as important and I'll jump back in.

[Shyone]

Sorry, they all start to run together in my "mind". At least we can continue to discuss these ideas rationally and hopefully come closer in our thinking.

 

LNC

I can understand that. I was just teasing.

 

For some reason, I've grown tired of discussing this (hence the snippiness in my thread right above yours here). I don't know if it's just me going through another of my phases, or if I've just run out of things to say. Anyway, I'll continue reading and hopefully something will hit me as important and I'll jump back in.

This thread gives me mini-seizures. Headaches, nausea, gas...

[NotBlinded]

Sorry, they all start to run together in my "mind". At least we can continue to discuss these ideas rationally and hopefully come closer in our thinking.

 

LNC

I can understand that. I was just teasing.

 

For some reason, I've grown tired of discussing this (hence the snippiness in my thread right above yours here). I don't know if it's just me going through another of my phases, or if I've just run out of things to say. Anyway, I'll continue reading and hopefully something will hit me as important and I'll jump back in.

This thread gives me mini-seizures. Headaches, nausea, gas...

Damn...that's what that smell is!

[LNC]

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Can you give a reference where the distinction between "causally prior" and "temporally prior" is described? Preferably not a reference whose purpose is to prove God's existence, or one that is theologically describing the universe. Those kinds of web sites lead to logical absurdities like "outside of physics" and "outside of the universe."

 

I don't doubt that there might be a site or other reference that uses the concept, but if causally prior was invented by a theologist (such as yourself) in order to excuse your god from existing in time, then you are using circular reasoning ("I believe god created the universe, so it happened causally prior to the universe, which proves that god created the universe...).

 

If you can't, then I will have to assume that causally prior is another nonsensical concept invented by theists to create a place for god.

 

Sure, here is the first page of an article entitled, CLOSED CAUSAL LOOPS, SINGLE CAUSES, AND ASYMMETRY that makes reference to this concept. Here is a link to a page of J.L. Mackie's book, The Cement of the Universe: a study of causation in which he makes repeated reference to the concept of something being causally prior (Mackie was an atheist, in case you didn't know). It is a common term in both philosophy and science. Causally prior means that one thing or event was the cause of another, while temporally prior means that one thing or event was before the another. The terms are pretty clear, I'm not sure why you need someone to distinguish them for you. Did you have specific questions about the differences?

 

Given the fact that Mackie himself used the term, causally prior, I will assume that I have satisfied your question about it legitimacy.

 

LNC

[LNC]

You have no clue about what the burden of proof is here, do you?

 

Actually, I do. Let's explore on...

 

given an all powerful being who exists outside of time NO, we will not give you that! It is precisely that which we don't give.

 

I may not have been clear here. I was not positing God as a given, but simply saying that if God exists or given that God exists. That is a common way of saying such a statement in philosophy, sorry for the confusion.

 

intelligent, all powerful being who exists outside of time THIS is no explanation at all. It is beyond pure speculation, and goes clear to wishful thinking. And you have yet to demonstrate anyone (other than a theologist) that uses this concept for anything other than to find a place for the Incredible Shrinking God.

 

It was part of the previous statement and should therefore be taken as a hypothetical statement. However, it is not, as you say, pure speculation, there are good evidences and arguments given for God's existence.

 

You don't know what falsifiable means. It is a good thing. It is the principle that a proposal could potentially be disproven if evidence existed to disprove it, and this is accompanied by some specific examples of what that evidence would be.

 

I do know what falsifiable means and, as I said, the arguments are falsifiable and I have given ways in other posts that your two possibilities could be falsified. However, those arguments must be logically valid, which I don't believe is the case.

 

question is whether their arguments and evidence carry "THEIR" arguments? YOU are the one proposing the invisible man. YOU have to exhibit something to indicate his existence besides your desire that its existence be "given."

 

Finally, "supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron. It really is. It is the equivalent of saying "we don't know, and we never will." To say that a supernatural undefinable something did something unknown using unknown methods in an unknwon way is the epitome of a useless explanation.

 

Sorry, I don't propose an invisible man, you must have me confused with someone else. I and many other people have given what I believe to be valid arguments for God's existence. Others, like Dawkins, Hitchens and others have given arguments to try to disprove God's existence; however, I don't think that their arguments logically hold up (or carry the burden of proof). That is why I mention "their arguments" as they are the ones who put them forth. The atheist also has a burden of proof to carry, which is to explain the existence of the material world, objective morality, consciousness and other phenomenon that we experience from a purely materialistic framework. I don't think it has or can be done. However, if you would like to give it a shot, I would be glad to hear what you have to say. Since we are talking about the origin of the universe, please start there if you like.

 

LNC