The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[skepticalme]

 

Logic is something, at least you seem to be trying to employ it here; can you tell me how much it weighs? How much space it requires? Where I can physically locate it? Oh well, I guess it must be nothing since it is not material (according to your definition.) Sorry, either logic doesn't exist (according to your definition) and your post is pure nonsense (as it would be without logic), or logic does exist and your post has failed in its application of it. Either way, it seems that your argument is moot.

 

LNC

 

Logic is a METHOD not a thing. It is something material beings DO. Your questions makes about as much sense as asking what a jump or a sit weighs. But without a material being you can not have logic, jumps or sits.

[Shyone]

Omnipresent, but no where. Outside of time. Doesn't take up space. Immaterial.

 

Omnipresent and everywhere (that is the definition). Outside of time - not within this time/space dimension.

 

Again, God is omnipresent, which by definition means present everywhere (omni - Etymology: Latin, from omnis: all : universally). Simply mis-defining words won't help you to make a logically fallacious argument. Nor will the application of faulty logic.

 

LNC

Omnipresent...

 

Was God with those last 4 coal mine workers?

 

Was he in the church with the families, friends and coworkers of those miners? Was he with you when you prayed for their safety? Ps. 119:25. I am laid low in the dust; preserve my life according to your word.

 

What, then, is the difference between being omnipresent and being nonexistent?

 

But then, maybe he's too weak to do anything, or he just doesn't care.

 

Your religion promises a lot, but delivers nothing.

50. My comfort in my suffering is this: Your promise preserves my life.

 

I call bullshit, and I haven't even dealt with Jesus' promises.

[Shyone]

 

Your description of "god" as "necessary being" is, by your own description, a tautology. You defined the concept as a "necessary being" and I do not accept that it is necessary or a being. You have not established existence by declaring that it exists - and it becomes no more meaningful to say it exists necessarily. Unicorns have the same criteria for existence as god does. Deny one, deny the other.

 

That is not my definition, that is the accepted definition of what God is. It gives us a basis on which to argue as to whether such a being exists. Some skeptics argue that Theists don't define who or what God is, and this is foundational to that definition. It is not, by the way, a tautology and you have not understood what the concept of "necessity" is by your objections. Necessity means that God exists independent of any other existing thing. In other words, God is not contingent on the existence of anything or anyone else. Therefore, a necessary being cannot not exist as it is not contingent in existence. You may not accept that definition; however, that just means that you are arguing against a philosophically accepted definition of God. Unless we have a definition of who or what God is, we cannot then proceed to determine whether God exists as we need to know who or what it is that we are arguing for or against. To make a definition is different than to argue as to whether that entity exists. For example, I could define a "Glorb" as a purple creature with fourteen eyes, wings and six feet measuring approximately 28' in length and 10' in height. I am not arguing that such a creature exists, I am merely defining what a Glorb would be if it did exist. It is then incumbent upon me, should I decide to do so, to prove that such a creature exists.

 

LNC

Your definition of a Glorb is at least meaningful. Your definition of God is not.

 

In fact, not only does the definition of God not prove its existence, it is the definition of nonexistence.

 

What exists between atoms, What exists when you remove the mass and engergy? The empty space of nothingness. There is your omnipresent god, whose very impotence is self-evident, and who cannot think a thought.

 

He is deaf to the prayers of the faithful, dumb in response to questions, and blind to the suffering that a god could alleviate - and would if it had an ounce of goodness in him: But an ounce is an infinite amount heavier than your nonexistent god.

 

You said Jephthah made a bad choice. I agree. But God stayed the hand of Abraham, and left Jephthah to complete the sacrifice.

 

Oh, I should mention, that it wasn't really God that stopped Abraham (or an angel). No god spoke to Abraham - ever. God didn't speak to Oral Roberts either. Nor Moses. If the stories were not fabricated out of whole cloth from ancient stories of other civilizations, then the characters were insane, or deluded, or power-hungry.

 

Nothingness does exist in a sense. It exists independent of everything else. And it does everything your god does: Nothing.

[Shyone]

Again, you are incorrect in your assessment of omniscience; however, you are correct in saying that God cannot change his mind and he doesn't (see Numbers 23:19). Middle knowledge is a different concept philosophically from omniscience, the latter does not necessarily require the former. I am not arguing for middle knowledge, per se. I know of no circumstances in which either you or I could be omniscient. There are no degrees of omniscience, one is or one is not omniscient, there is no such thing as being partially omniscient. So, you are arguing a straw man case. BTW, the definition given in your link is fallacious in that it says that God would know absolutely everything and that is not the definition of omniscience. Here is a more precise definition. Precision is very important when discussing these topics as a faulty understanding will lead to all sorts of errors.

 

If you would like to wrestle with Anselm on this issue, I would be glad to help you work through it; however, it is not in any way, as you say, a self-contradictory concept.

 

LNC

I'm glad to see you abandoning the concept of "middle knowledge" as a weasel way out of being omniscient. I read the definition of omniscience, and it clearly states that, for your definition and concept of god, god would require knowledge of future events - all of them.

 

But theologians, confronted with the problems of predestination and free will, with foreknowledge and immutability, have on occasion changed their minds: "In recent years perhaps the most widely accepted response to the argument is to accept it but to deny that omniscience extends to knowledge of the future."

 

Well, there goes prophecy!

 

I should point out that the attempts to weasel out of this conundrum are unsuccessful.

 

As for Anselm, you can't be serious that we should accept the existence of something because it is "imaginable."

 

It exists in thought, and nowhere else. That I can accept. But that isn't what you are claiming.

 

No inference can be made about the existence of something from nothing more than the conception of that thing.

 

The argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist. The argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion fallacy, as it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent to the unproven statement. This is also called a circular argument, because the premise relies on the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.

 

Plantinga's argument merely re-assumes that existence is a property and continues the argumentation by tautology.

 

Please don't waste our time.

[Shyone]

Logic is something, at least you seem to be trying to employ it here; can you tell me how much it weighs? How much space it requires? Where I can physically locate it? Oh well, I guess it must be nothing since it is not material (according to your definition.) Sorry, either logic doesn't exist (according to your definition) and your post is pure nonsense (as it would be without logic), or logic does exist and your post has failed in its application of it. Either way, it seems that your argument is moot.

 

LNC

You have tried this before. There is a certain circularity to your arguments. Refuted arguments keep coming back again, and again, and again.

 

A thought, a mental process has no weight, does not require speace and cannot be physically located (well, actually it can, but I'll let that pass).

 

It is not an independent "thing." It is as real as fantasy, as much of an object as a dream. Existence, in the case of logic, does not happen outside of our minds.

 

You have a concept of god, and that is all you have. Just as you may loosely understand logic, you may understand your god, but it cannot answer prayers outside of your own mind. You also, incidentally, have a concept of a Glorb. Does that mean it exists as a thing? Even you don't grant that.

 

Can you really not see the difference between concepts and reality? That is a sad situation indeed.

[bornagainathiest]

Just for the record folks, I'm bowing out of this thread.

 

I'd like to thank all involved for their input. Having initiated things back in August last year and now, with 500+ posts about the KCA, I think I can safely say that my questions have been amply answered.

 

To LNC...

 

Thanks for your replies, but I've now heard the mantra, 'immaterial, eternal, non-spatial being' so many times (made without supporting evidence) that I can only conclude you've become a Buddhist.

 

To everyone else...

 

Please feel free to continue in my absence. Once again, thanks. I plan to keep a watchful eye on things, hoping that currently circular arguments may yet be resolved. (Won't hold my breath, tho.)

 

BAA.

[NotBlinded]

Thanks for your replies, but I've now heard the mantra, 'immaterial, eternal, non-spatial being' so many times (made without supporting evidence) that I can only conclude you've become a Buddhist.

 

Oh my god, that was funny!

[LNC]

I see no reason that this negates causality outside of time,

 

Of couse, if you can't refute it, dismiss it. Typical creationist tactic.

 

If you will reread my response, you will find that I didn't dismiss it, just don't see that you gave any support for your position. In fact, as I mentioned, it still tells us that everything that began to exist has a cause.

 

How did you jump to that conclusion? We're still waiting for you to explain how cause and effect work without time. Good luck doing that without begging the question.

 

I don't make that argument. I argue that the formal and final causes existed outside of time, and as the efficient and material cause in unison with the creation of time. There is no philosophical problem with this model and no question-begging involved. God can exist as the efficient cause (the primary source of change), the formal cause (having the form of what the universe would be) outside of time and as the efficient cause (the cause of change) and the material cause (that out of which matter came to be) in unison with the creation of time.

 

Now, maybe you could give your materialist explanation for the origin of the universe (without begging the question).

 

Please define 'causally prior'. You appear to be making up terms in order to support your argument. Nothing but special pleading.

 

I didn't make up this term, it is a fairly commonly used term in both philosophy and science. I have given links to this effect. The idea can be traced back at least to (late 17th/early 18th century) Leibniz who argued for non-temporal causal relations. In fact, many materialists hold to a "B theory" of time which has no temporal direction (all points of time are equally realized; there is no such thing as past or future. Now, while I hold to the "A theory" or tensed theory of time, I also hold, like many cosmologists, that time came into existence with the universe (approximately 13.7 billion years ago). Since all material things have a cause, according to the the principle of causality (which has never been proved false), then it follows that the universe (all matter, space and time) had a cause and that that cause must have existed outside of time.

 

So, your charge of special pleading is simply based upon your unfamiliarity with the field. Look back through my posts and you will find links that I believe I put in referring to causal priority, or simply Google it for yourself.

 

That doesn't mean you explaination is correct. "You can't answer this, therefore god" isn't much of an argument.

 

No, it doesn't. But it also doesn't mean that you have a viable explanation either. So far, I believe that my explanation holds up to what we know scientifically and philosophically.

 

So, Kalam still stands up and also remains the most plausible explanation.

 

Only if you reject reality and substitute your own.

 

Maybe you could explain your answer, lest it be a mere empty assertion. Can you explain reality as you see it and show me how that disproves my view of reality. I will be looking for your evidential support, rather than mere assertions.

 

Who's claiming its past eternal? You are the one claiming a past eternal being which I find equally absurd. Why is it that god is immune from all those same logical absurdities?

 

There are three options as I see it, and if you see others, please let me know. 1) Matter always existed - this leads to the problem of an infinite regress, which leads to logical absurdities; 2) the universe is uncaused or self-caused, both of which are logical absurdities and have no scientific or philosophical support; 3) the universe was caused by an immaterial agent, which doesn't have direct scientific support per se, but also does not violate logic.

 

I would say that the third option makes the most sense since if doesn't violate either logic or science, both of which are violated by options 1 and 2. Logic leads me to option 3. Now, you can either support option one and defend it against entropy and the infinite regress problem, or you can defend option 2 and defend the logical problem of non-causation or self-causation, or you can come up with another option and defend that. You're up.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

There are three options as I see it, and if you see others, please let me know. 1) Matter always existed - this leads to the problem of an infinite regress, which leads to logical absurdities; 2) the universe is uncaused or self-caused, both of which are logical absurdities and have no scientific or philosophical support; 3) the universe was caused by an immaterial agent, which doesn't have direct scientific support per se, but also does not violate logic.

 

LNC

It's ironic, but to me the most absurd answer of all is the invisible pixie creator thingy that you have to make eternal (leading to infinite regress), and "outside of the universe" which is - literally - nowhere. The God Hypothesis violates both science and logic. It is only by special pleading that you get to an "immaterial agent" of which there are no other known examples (and this one has not been demonstrated). Immaterial Agent, in the sense that you intend, is an oxymoron.

 

I see no problem with matter existing infinitely - in some form (matter is interchangeable with energy). Heck, we don't even know if the universe is a closed or an open system, so thermodynamics may not apply in the way we think it should.

 

Also, you have conveniently dismissed the current scientific and philosophical support for a self-caused universe.

 

The flaw in each of your choices is that we really don't know everything. But the last thing one should do it reach for a magic invisible immaterial timeless creature.

 

In fact, I can only think of one area in science where anyone is considering such garbage, and that's the only unknown left - the origin of the universe. It isn't the scientists however that are considering such wildly speculative and unhelpful "solutions".

 

It's you.

[Ouroboros]

The anti-kalam:

 

p1) Anything that comes into existence had a natural cause to come into existence

p2) The universe came into existence

c) The cause to the universe was a natural cause.

[Shyone]

The anti-kalam:

 

p1) Anything that comes into existence had a natural cause to come into existence

p2) The universe came into existence

c) The cause to the universe was a natural cause.

This is the point I was trying to make. Honestly!

 

We have no examples of anything unnatural, so it is reasonable to assume that everything is natural - including any cause - first, second ad infinitum.

 

This is, in fact, how science works. We assume that we test something local and that it applies generally. How do we know that stars are made of chemicals? How do we know how fast the light travelled from those stars?

 

That's why we keep looking. We discover the physical laws that allow or make things happen. And everything, as far back as physics can look, is natural.

 

The problem, however, isn't that physics found something other than natural. Rather there are limits to physics. Still, everything that can be demonstrated to have a cause has a physical cause.

[Dagan]

So it's OK for an invisible super-being to have always existed, but we can't apply the same suspension of disbelief to matter?

[Ouroboros]

So it's OK for an invisible super-being to have always existed, but we can't apply the same suspension of disbelief to matter?

Of course not. Matter isn't as magical as a supernatural, non-temporal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, sacrifice-human-to-oneself-for-creating-an-imperfect-world beings.

 

You just admit that sci-fi is more mind-blowing than than sci-real. Warp drive and time-travel are so cool...

[Dagan]

So it's OK for an invisible super-being to have always existed, but we can't apply the same suspension of disbelief to matter?

Of course not. Matter isn't as magical as a supernatural, non-temporal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, sacrifice-human-to-oneself-for-creating-an-imperfect-world beings.

 

You just admit that sci-fi is more mind-blowing than than sci-real. Warp drive and time-travel are so cool...

 

Just so we have the ground rules clear here.

 

Sort of related -- here's one of my favourite cartoons EVAR:

 

[skepticalme]

In fact, as I mentioned, it still tells us that everything that began to exist has a cause.

 

Since all material things have a cause, according to the the principle of causality (which has never been proved false), then it follows that the universe (all matter, space and time) had a cause and that that cause must have existed outside of time.

 

Can you name any examples of things that began to exist due to a cause? Don't say the Big Bang or the universe because that is what you are argueing and that would be a circular argument. Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. This is a scienfific fact. Its only the interactions of that matter and energy within time that needs cause. The is no cause that creates more matter or energy.

 

Lets take a look at your first statement. You are assurting that everything that began to exist has a cause. But everything began with the Big Bang. So your exidence that the Big Bang needs a cause is that the Big Bang needs a cause. This is a circular argument. Your only example of "begging to exist due to a cause" is the very thing you are argueing for.

 

Causality occurs within time;

Time occurs within the universe.

Therefore, causality occurs WITHIN the universe and cannot be applied to the universe itself.

 

There are three options as I see it, and if you see others, please let me know. 1) Matter always existed - this leads to the problem of an infinite regress, which leads to logical absurdities; 2) the universe is uncaused or self-caused, both of which are logical absurdities and have no scientific or philosophical support; 3) the universe was caused by an immaterial agent, which doesn't have direct scientific support per se, but also does not violate logic.

 

#3 is illogical because either the immaterial being is self causing or is itself an infinite regression. In either case #3 is the same as #1 and #2 just with that extra step added. If god can exist uncaused why not the universe?

[NotBlinded]

In fact, as I mentioned, it still tells us that everything that began to exist has a cause.

 

Since all material things have a cause, according to the the principle of causality (which has never been proved false), then it follows that the universe (all matter, space and time) had a cause and that that cause must have existed outside of time.

 

Can you name any examples of things that began to exist due to a cause? Don't say the Big Bang or the universe because that is what you are argueing and that would be a circular argument. Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. This is a scienfific fact. Its only the interactions of that matter and energy within time that needs cause. The is no cause that creates more matter or energy.

 

Lets take a look at your first statement. You are assurting that everything that began to exist has a cause. But everything began with the Big Bang. So your exidence that the Big Bang needs a cause is that the Big Bang needs a cause. This is a circular argument. Your only example of "begging to exist due to a cause" is the very thing you are argueing for.

 

Causality occurs within time;

Time occurs within the universe.

Therefore, causality occurs WITHIN the universe and cannot be applied to the universe itself.

 

There are three options as I see it, and if you see others, please let me know. 1) Matter always existed - this leads to the problem of an infinite regress, which leads to logical absurdities; 2) the universe is uncaused or self-caused, both of which are logical absurdities and have no scientific or philosophical support; 3) the universe was caused by an immaterial agent, which doesn't have direct scientific support per se, but also does not violate logic.

 

#3 is illogical because either the immaterial being is self causing or is itself an infinite regression. In either case #3 is the same as #1 and #2 just with that extra step added. If god can exist uncaused why not the universe?

Awesome post stucker, but have you ever tried to get the gooey slime back in the container? The harder you push, the more it pops back out. It must be all that trapped air...