The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Legion]

... we haven't clearly figured out how causality works.

I agree with you that we probably don’t yet have a good grasp of causality. At least, I know that I’m still trying to figure it out.

 

After all, quantum mechanics, braided space, string theory, etc, suggests that what we see are just after-glow or effects of these weird things at the bottom of reality.

I’m not at all certain anymore that there is a “bottom of reality.” This strikes me as reductionism.

 

For instance, "why does a bird have a beak," does have an answer in that it evolved to be most efficient for the purpose of eating worms, and yada-yada. when life evolves, it evolves into filling the empty spots, and it evolves to improved fitness, and those are final causes. Not intentional from some supermind, but they are reasons to why they stay around.

Robert Rosen seems to argue that our refusal to admit (some limited form of) final cause into science has prevented us from seeing some important things about organisms.

 

I think the problem is that it is very difficult for most people to see the difference between an unintended final cause (if you will), and an intentional (thought out beforehand) final cause.

I suspect you’re absolutely correct here. And I think this is a very keen insight.

[Ouroboros]

After all, quantum mechanics, braided space, string theory, etc, suggests that what we see are just after-glow or effects of these weird things at the bottom of reality.

I’m not at all certain anymore that there is a “bottom of reality.” This strikes me as reductionism.

Actually, I agree with you there too. But we can find and figure out how things works beneath one level, basically reduce it within the level of framework where we are researching. So you can break it down from one level to the next, but it doesn't answer how the things work on this new, deeper level.

 

My phrase was referring to that at the bottom of how we experience reality, time, space, matter, etc, we can find a level which does not apply to our framework. Time, space, matter dissolved. It is of course not the "bottom of everything," but it's certainly bottom (or foundation, or scaffolding) of this particular reality we currently are experiencing.

 

Robert Rosen seems to argue that our refusal to admit (some limited form of) final cause into science has prevented us from seeing some important things about organisms.

I think scientists refuse it because of the confusion in its definition, as I explained above. Just because they're afraid to fall into the trap of the "pre-existing intention final cause", they throw out the rubber-duck with the bathtub, and can't reason about "unintended final causes". And even if they did, they risk of giving the impression of arguing the former and come out sounding "religious." And then lose credibility.

 

I suspect you’re absolutely correct here. And I think this is a very keen insight.

Thank you, but we came to the ideas together. I wouldn't have thought about it unless you had brought it up (and in that particular manner).

[NotBlinded]

I disagree with this. I think “why” is every bit as important in science as “how”. Sometimes I even get the sense that “how” can be subsumed under efficient and formal causes, which are answers to “why”.

I have a problem with the word why. Not because the usage in science or not, but because of a certain level of vagueness in its definition.

 

"Why" either means a reason based on intention, or a reason without a direct intention.

 

Think about this:

 

Kid asks his dad, "why is the sky blue, dad?" And the father answers, "because the size of the particles in the stratosphere are of a size which only allows a certain frequency of light to pass through." (Or something like that) Then the "why" was really answered with the process of "how." They are synonymous to some degree.

 

But if the dad answers, "because Flurlox, the great pixie king before he created the sky, saw a pretty blue flower on the road to his kingdom, and decided that this was the color he would make the sky." Then, it's not really a good use of "why," because it is assuming someone's intention to why it is such-and-such. We can't really assume that someone intended it to be a certain way, because it is a shut-the-door policy. You can't research deeper or further if the answer is part of an imagination.

 

The "why" in this latter sense doesn't help science while the former does. Except perhaps for sciencew which involves human actions, like sociology, psychology, and maybe biology(?).

All of this is exactly what I mean by saying that no one has ever seen a cause or a Causer. We only describe effects in everything. We don't "know" what anything is. This is the mystery of the formal cause.

 

It also reflects our linear understanding of reality by symbolic language and thought. Again this "ghost" shows its ugly head. These things are ingrained in our psyches, unconsciously, and play a huge part in how we try to intrepret reality.

 

Another thing I was thinking about the other day on the drive home, was about intention, which you mention above. Imagine that? Is a cause only a cause when mind driven intention is involved? This is very limiting and goes back to what I was saying about voluntary and involuntary actions in a previous post.

[Ouroboros]

NBBTB,

 

Agree.

 

Another thing that occurred to me a few months back--lets see if I can explain this to get it through--we are not freely acting within the environment. When I drive I follow rules, abide by non-specific agreements, avoid other drivers, but I breath air that happens to be in that current environment too, and I see what I can see depending on my eyes, the daylight or if it's dark, and I think the things that follow certain things I thought about or did earlier that day, and so on... I'm acting, reacting, within that particular given circumstance, and I wonder if I even had one single independent "free-will" thought at all? I started to feel more like a cog within a larger system, and my independence were a mere fiction. I felt more like a cell within a body, rather than a body on my own. Does it make sense? Do you know what I'm talking about?

[Shyone]

I'm acting, reacting, within that particular given circumstance, and I wonder if I even had one single independent "free-will" thought at all? I started to feel more like a cog within a larger system, and my independence were a mere fiction. I felt more like a cell within a body, rather than a body on my own. Does it make sense? Do you know what I'm talking about?

I know exactly what you are talking about. It's as if everything that we do, everything that happens to us, was somehow totally out of our control, even our own thoughts.

 

That's when I close my eyes and say, "Jesus, take the wheel!" and I realize that I'd be a lot better off driving myself. J/K

 

Every once in a while, surprise yourself, and make plans; do that which you hadn't considered worthy before, change the mold.

 

I sometimes write something here, and I have to say, "I can't believe I wrote that." So much for determinism.

[NotBlinded]

NBBTB,

 

Agree.

 

Another thing that occurred to me a few months back--lets see if I can explain this to get it through--we are not freely acting within the environment. When I drive I follow rules, abide by non-specific agreements, avoid other drivers, but I breath air that happens to be in that current environment too, and I see what I can see depending on my eyes, the daylight or if it's dark, and I think the things that follow certain things I thought about or did earlier that day, and so on... I'm acting, reacting, within that particular given circumstance, and I wonder if I even had one single independent "free-will" thought at all? I started to feel more like a cog within a larger system, and my independence were a mere fiction. I felt more like a cell within a body, rather than a body on my own. Does it make sense? Do you know what I'm talking about?

Yes, I absolutely know what you are saying. Yet, I think we have to remember that it is a mutual cause and effect relationship. It's not determinism, per say, but an interaction between the two. Oh, I just remembered the word: Dependent origination.

 

I'm going to go grab something on that...hold on a sec...okay I'm back. Did you miss me?

 

This is the understanding that any phenomenon exists only because of the existence of other phenomena in an incredibly complex web of cause and effect covering time past, time present and time future. This concept of a web is symbolized by Indra's net, a multidimensional spider's web on which lies an infinite amount of dew drops or jewels, and in these are reflected the reflections of all the other drops of dew ad infinitum.

 

Stated in another way, everything depends on everything else. A human being's existence in any given moment is dependent on the condition of everything else in the world at that moment, but in an equally significant way, the condition of everything in the world in that moment depends conversely on the character and condition of that human being. Everything in the Universe is interconnected through the web of cause and effect such that the whole and the parts are mutually interdependent. The character and condition of entities at any given time are intimately connected with the character and condition of all other entities that superficially may appear to be unconnected or unrelated.

Dependent Origination

 

So, it's not determined or independent, but interdependent.

 

You want to feel something else really strange? When you look at someone, see yourself seeing through their eyes. Not metaphorically, but literally. When that happens to me, I think, OMG, I am my neighbor! (Yet, I could be quite insane too!)

[NotBlinded]

I suspect you’re absolutely correct here. And I think this is a very keen insight.

Thank you, but we came to the ideas together. I wouldn't have thought about it unless you had brought it up (and in that particular manner).

Here's another example of interdependent origination you guys.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for that tidbit NBBTB.

[Legion]

Notblinded I’ve been reading the work of a scientist, a theoretical biologist. And he asserted that the concept of “entailment” provides a reliable foundation for science. Sometime later I was speaking with a Buddhist and I asked him if he had an equivalent concept and he responded with the term “dependent arising”.

[Guest end3]

It's you who should defend your a priori assumption. I don't have to defend Nature, because you can just open your eyes, and it's there.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

Empirical evidence exists for the laws of nature. Empirical evidence exists for the laws of physics. Empirical evidence exists for the theory of evolution. Empirical evidence exists for the theory of abiogenesis. These things are not open to serious challenge from a scientific or rational standpoint. we may ask questions about how things owrk in the natural world, but the fact they they do work is no mere conjecture.

 

No empirical evidence exists for the supernatural, god, Heaven, Hell, the soul, or life after death. Anyone defending the existence of any or all of these things has, in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, a lot of 'splainin to do.

 

Lissen Lucy,

 

We have talked about this before......I ask you this.....do you not find it at least a little coincedental that seemingly the only means for discovering a supernatural world is death and this is the very mechanism that the bible employs?

 

You may find this a bit touched, but I think it's kind of interesting.

[NotBlinded]

Notblinded I’ve been reading the work of a scientist, a theoretical biologist. And he asserted that the concept of “entailment” provides a reliable foundation for science. Sometime later I was speaking with a Buddhist and I asked him if he had an equivalent concept and he responded with the term “dependent arising”.

Oh cool. I'm going to look into entailment. Thanks Legion!

 

And Hans, you're welcome.

 

Legion, I tried to look into entailment and all I got was an area of logic to where both parts of a sentence must be true without presupposition. Could you put this together a little for me please?

[NotBlinded]

Thanks for that tidbit NBBTB.

Hans, did I answer your question? For some reason I have a feeling that I didn't tie something together that you were wanting expressed that has to do with intentions. Because I'm not sure if I was clear enough on the voluntary and involuntary actions.

[Shyone]

 

Lissen Lucy,

 

We have talked about this before......I ask you this.....do you not find it at least a little coincedental that seemingly the only means for discovering a supernatural world is death and this is the very mechanism that the bible employs?

 

You may find this a bit touched, but I think it's kind of interesting.

I realize you are addressing someone else, but the question is relevant to me, if not to the topic at hand.

 

Death remains a 1-way street, but the promises offered are at the other end. No one can come back to verify that they received a reward or punishment, but fiction is full of such stories. (e.g. Scrooge)

 

People want to believe there is another life, or continuation of this life, and they would pay much to get it, so the preacher offers them eternal life - IF they will follow his rules, which happen to include paying his salary.

 

This is why it makes sense to me that the supernatural world is reached through death and that is the mechanism the bible employs.

 

"The Holy Bible! It's a SCAM!" shouts the dying man as he glimpses the void...

[Guest end3]

Death remains a 1-way street, but the promises offered are at the other end.

 

To the contrary for me Shyone....I have experienced some of the most rewarding joy in my life through belief, althought I realize many have not.

 

No one can come back to verify that they received a reward or punishment, but fiction is full of such stories. (e.g. Scrooge)

 

I can certainly understand that perspective.

 

People want to believe there is another life, or continuation of this life, and they would pay much to get it, so the preacher offers them eternal life - IF they will follow his rules, which happen to include paying his salary.

 

Ahh, if that were the case, we would all bow out of Christianity. There comes a point for us all when we can see these things and have to choose how we wish to address them. We choose to pay whomever we wish for their services.

 

This is why it makes sense to me that the supernatural world is reached through death and that is the mechanism the bible employs.

 

I haven't been here for a few days Shyone, have you written a testamony? Just glancing at some of your posts, seems as though the bible fails the intellectual test for you....for a while now.

 

"The Holy Bible! It's a SCAM!" shouts the dying man as he glimpses the void...

 

If it helps a few people, then are they not diserving of peace as well?

[Ouroboros]

Hans, did I answer your question? For some reason I have a feeling that I didn't tie something together that you were wanting expressed that has to do with intentions. Because I'm not sure if I was clear enough on the voluntary and involuntary actions.

I'm not sure if I had a question. It's more of mind-wanderings. Basically, if I understand it right, it is all interconnected, so cause and effect are in unity, they are one, not one leading to the other, but both being in harmony. Close?

[NotBlinded]

Hans, did I answer your question? For some reason I have a feeling that I didn't tie something together that you were wanting expressed that has to do with intentions. Because I'm not sure if I was clear enough on the voluntary and involuntary actions.

I'm not sure if I had a question. It's more of mind-wanderings. Basically, if I understand it right, it is all interconnected, so cause and effect are in unity, they are one, not one leading to the other, but both being in harmony. Close?

Yes that's it and with this understanding, Karma has a more profound understanding without the "law of retribution" getting in the way. But, that's another thread.

[Legion]

Legion, I tried to look into entailment and all I got was an area of logic to where both parts of a sentence must be true without presupposition. Could you put this together a little for me please?

Yeah, I think it’s difficult to find a decent treatise on entailment NotBlinded. I don’t know if I can do an adequate job of it, but I’ll try. I have some errands to run today, so I’ll try to post something this evening.

[Guest Davka]

We have talked about this before......I ask you this.....do you not find it at least a little coincedental that seemingly the only means for discovering a supernatural world is death and this is the very mechanism that the bible employs?

A couple of things -

 

1 Life after death (or conscious existence after death) would not be proof of the supernatural. It could be a phenomenon with natural causes, assuming it exists.

 

2 The Bible is not the only book or collection of writings which claims that there is life after death. Why should it be given any more weight than any other source which makes this claim?

 

I don't see the coincidence at all. Lots of different religions claim there is a supernatural realm. Most of them say the "proof" will be clear only after we die. What's the point? Does this mean that the Egyptian Book of the Dead is eerily coincidental in that we can only know if it's true once we're dead?

[Guest Davka]

As to the "why" v. "how" question - I should have been more specific. "Why" in the sense of ultimate purpose or meaning is begging the question, and is the purview of philosophy, not science. I agree that there are legitimate uses of the question "why" in science, but asking "why are we here" in the sense of "what is our ultimate purpose" can be answered by science only with "in order to continue reproducing our DNA sequence, if possible."

 

Science cannot answer "why" questions that presuppose the existence of a Creator who made everything for a purpose. That is what I meant by begging the question.

[Guest end3]

1 Life after death (or conscious existence after death) would not be proof of the supernatural. It could be a phenomenon with natural causes, assuming it exists.

 

I don't see where this holds water per the definition. I mean, what is supernatural? The point being, when it becomes known to our natural world, it's now natural. Where else would supernatural exist except outside of natural? Is all that will ever be contained in our natural universe? I don't think we know.

 

2 The Bible is not the only book or collection of writings which claims that there is life after death. Why should it be given any more weight than any other source which makes this claim?

 

For me, I find that the bible holds several coincedences.....but I will admit to knowing little of other works.

 

I don't see the coincidence at all. Lots of different religions claim there is a supernatural realm. Most of them say the "proof" will be clear only after we die. What's the point? Does this mean that the Egyptian Book of the Dead is eerily coincidental in that we can only know if it's true once we're dead?

 

I don't know that it is useful to rule out an "imaginary" evidence especially when we are trying to define supernatural.

[Guest Davka]

1 Life after death (or conscious existence after death) would not be proof of the supernatural. It could be a phenomenon with natural causes, assuming it exists.

 

I don't see where this holds water per the definition. I mean, what is supernatural? The point being, when it becomes known to our natural world, it's now natural. Where else would supernatural exist except outside of natural? Is all that will ever be contained in our natural universe? I don't think we know.

What I'm saying is that the set of information we call our consciousness could conceivably survive the death of our brains in some physical form. Perhaps on the quantum level, or in some way that we don't yet understand. I don't actually believe that this is the case, but it's one possibility. Life after death could be natural.

 

By "natural" I mean that which we can physically measure in some fashion. By definition the supernatural or metaphysical would not be measurable. But it's possible that life after death would be a measurable phenomenon of some sort.

 

Honestly, it strikes me as far more important to recognize that the promise of life after death is the strongest hold that religion has on people. This seems to imply that religion is so widespread because it offers a way of dealing with the fear of death, through denial of the fact that we will all die some day. The fact that it cannot be known until after we die makes it less believable to me, not more.

[Guest end3]

Honestly, it strikes me as far more important to recognize that the promise of life after death is the strongest hold that religion has on people. This seems to imply that religion is so widespread because it offers a way of dealing with the fear of death, through denial of the fact that we will all die some day. The fact that it cannot be known until after we die makes it less believable to me, not more.

 

I would have to argue that fear keeps people going back, but I see your point. And to be honest, having children, I am thankful for science and the ability to "cure" them when they get sick, but I do not disregard that the ability of the doctors/researchers that enabled the cure came from a cause.

 

I will have to look into some of these lines of thought as I have not been down those paths.....

[Shyone]

Lots of different religions claim there is a supernatural realm. Most of them say the "proof" will be clear only after we die. What's the point? Does this mean that the Egyptian Book of the Dead is eerily coincidental in that we can only know if it's true once we're dead?

I like the way you worded this. Nicely done.

[LNC]

Hence the problem. Are you going to find the cause of matter in matter? What is matter but a measurement of differences?

 

To say that matter is the cause of matter is the same as to say that matter is self-caused and that is illogical. I have never heard matter referred to as the measurement of differences. Are you possibly thinking of time, which is the measurement of change?

[LNC]

Hello LNC.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

Yes, we seem to be agreed that the Kalam isn't a bona fide proof for the existence of the Christian God. Is it a valid argument for the existence of a God? Can it be used to argue for a personal and intelligent God? Well, perhaps we could debate these issues?

 

I'm sorry that you're confused about my chosen name in this forum. I'll explain it as simply as I can.

Prior to becoming a Christian I was an Atheist. When I became a Christian I naturally rejected my Atheistic world-view. Then, when I privately and publicly rejected Jesus, my Atheism was metaphorically, "born again". That's it, in chronological nutshell.

 

I consider all Gods, deities or supernatural agencies (including Jesus) as false because, imho, they have no real or actual existence. I reject the notion that if there is a false god, there is, by implication, a true one. All supernatural agencies are false because they are incorrect interpretations of the true nature of reality.

No, the falsity I refer to is the incorrect conclusion that anything supernatural has a real or actual existence. Here is a link to what I consider to be an incorrect (and therefore false) conclusion about the nature of reality.

 

http://www.en.wikipedi.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

 

Those who hold to this concept are demonstrably adhering to and promoting a false view of reality. In the same way, those who hold to and advocate a supernatural view of reality are doing a similar thing. Because Jesus is part of such a supernatural viewpoint, he falls under the definition false, as outlined above. Therefore I refer to Jesus as a false god. I hope this is helpful.

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

 

I don't think that I said that Kalam isn't a bona fide argument for the existence of the Christian God, just that it isn't an argument for Christianity, and that would be true as there are other arguments that would have to be added to come to that conclusion, such as arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. However, the type of God that would come from the Kalam argument would be quite consistent with the God depicted by Christianity. Yes, I do believe that the God argued by Kalam would be both personal and intelligent; although, the argument from design strengthens the case for intelligence.

 

I know that your name is simply a play on the term used by Christianity, born again; however, I am still curious as to what you consider to have been born again when you renounced Christianity. You see, the term born again in Christianity refers to the fact that we are spiritually dead in our sin before trusting in Christ as Paul tells us in Ephesians 2 and when we trust in Christ, God makes us alive together with him (Eph. 2:4). So, what was it about you that was reborn, besides your belief that God doesn't exist (a belief to which some atheists won't even admit to these days)?

 

I guess that I see from where my confusion came. You see, generally when people refer to something being false, it is because they know what the true thing is like and know that the false thing doesn't accurately represent the true thing. However, I don't believe that I have heard anyone refer to a false thing as something that doesn't even exist. It would be like saying that someone saw a false UFO or believed in a false Unicorn. It is an imprecise use of words.

 

My next question is how you know that God doesn't exist? What is your evidence for such an assertion? In what way are people incorrectly interpreting the true nature of reality and how do you know that this is the case? How do you know that you have the correct interpretation of reality?

 

Sorry, your link didn't seem to work, but I'm sure that it was pointing to a Wikipedia entry on the flat earth society or some such page. However, are you insinuating that the idea of a flat earth was somehow common to Christianity or that these people accurately interpreted the Bible? If so, could you tell me how they would have accurately come to that conclusion from the Bible? Could you also tell me how widespread this movement was and give me your data? The fact is that the idea of that the earth was flat didn't come from Christianity at all, it came from the ancient philosophers. It was common knowledge that the earth was spherical before this organization came to be and a Christian, Christopher Columbus, who sailed from Europe to America two centuries before this society began. The fact is that this was a small sect of nuts who were not too much different than groups today that claim that Jesus never existed or that the holocaust never happened. For you to somehow connect them with the likes of scholars who have good reason to believe in the existence of a supernatural realm is simply absurd. However, if you have good reason to believe that the supernatural realm doesn't exist, I would like to hear it.

 

Thanks,

 

LNC