The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[LNC]

The universe exists. You want more evidence than that?

 

I believe the question is how and why the universe exists.

 

 

Nope. Big Bang, expansion until attraction reverses direction, deflation until Big Crunch, creating a singularity which, unstable, creates a Big Bang . . .

 

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

Seems that the data is not working in your favor as the universe is expanding at an increasing velocity. What is your evidence that this will reverse? Also, what is your evidence that there would be enough energy to create a second Big Bang? It seems that you have left the realm of science and crossed into metaphysics.

 

You seem to misunderstand much of what you have read. It is pure speculation to posit the necessity of the First Cause being either intelligent or personal. I defy you to show me a single respected astrophysicist who claims such a thing.

 

Nice. You who have thrown out assertions with no backing are now telling me that I have misunderstood what I have read. So, let me get this straight before we go further, are you now accepting that there was a beginning to the universe?

 

Come off it. You asked me to prove that the universe "is not finite." I pointed out that you are asking me to prove a negative. You claim that because you have a semantic pile of gobbledygook, proving that something is not true is somehow different from proving a negative.

 

I suppose this same line of drek proves that black is white.

 

You just don't seem to read my posts. I am asking you to prove that the universe is eternal, that is a positive assertion on your part for which you should be able to show evidential support. There is nothing negative about that assertion. It seems that you are trying to avoid giving evidence for your assertion. I have given evidence to show that the universe is finite, now I am asking you to show evidence that it is past eternal.

 

LNC: Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty, so in a sense, it is based upon belief statements. Do you have information to prove otherwise?

 

 

Davka: Science is also not based on semantics. Your arguments, however, are. The above utterly nonsensical assertion is a perfect example.

 

Get thee to a university. Your ignorance is abysmal. Go tell any professor of any scientific discipline that science is "in a sense, based on belief statements."

 

When he has properly schooled you, come back and apologize for being such a fool. And while you're at it, have him school you on Occam's Razor.

 

You really like to avoid answering my questions and making up your own. What about my argument is nonsensical? Is science based upon certainty or probability? If it is based upon probability, is there not an element of belief associate with that? Is science based upon axioms which cannot themselves be proven? If so, does that not require an element of belief that those axioms are true? Would you please answer these questions before you make up arguments of your own.

 

You won't give up on this Occam's razor business will you? You haven't even addressed my statements about your misuse of the principle, yet you claim that you were somehow right in your usage of it. Maybe you could actually address what I had to say there as well since you really haven't up to this point. From where did you get your definition of Occam's razor?

[NotBlinded]

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, that's not what I said. Anyway, nevermind. It's not possible to carry on with you due to your posting style. I understand that you are trying to address everyone, but I don't think you are really putting anything together from prior ideas. Again, that may be a posting style problem. Yet, it seems that you just spout answers instead of trying to remember what someone else said prior. I'm going to jump out of the conversation with you, but hopefully you will read the conversations between others so you can put some of the concepts together.

[bornagainathiest]

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

 

Thank you for your reply LNC.

 

As the initiator of this thread, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in my opening message I expressed a preference. This is a direct quote.

 

"I would much rather you discuss the Kalam and not the fate of my immortal soul." 28th August 2009 - 06:27 AM

 

Please note that the word,"you" wasn't directed specifically at you, LNC, but was for the attention of anyone choosing to respond to my queries. While I appreciate your interest and curiosity, I would prefer that this thread stay firmly centered on the topic at hand. I apologize if the quoted sentence was unclear, ambiguous or confusing to you. Please let me re-state what I meant in clearer language.

 

My interest is solely in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Any issues not relating to that topic (such as the fate of my immortal soul or my chosen name, BornAgainAthiest) I consider as irrelevant and off-topic.

 

Therefore, I thank you for your relevant input, but I regret that the portion of your reply I've highlighted in red will go unanswered by me, because it does not relate to the said topic. I'm sorry that you've wasted your time and effort on these digressions.

 

Please note that on 1st September 2009 ( at 05:48 AM) I posted the correct link for the Wikipedia page about the Flat Earth Society and acknowledged the linkage error I made. I'm sorry that you missed that.

 

By rights, I shouldn't have answered your earlier question about the name I use here, because this is not relevant to the topic of this thread. Instead I should have politely requested that you stay on-topic. Sadly I didn't and I now have to inform you that I won't be responding to the portion of your reply that I've highlighted in pale grey - because of the reason already given.

 

Once again, thank you for your reply.

 

BornAgainAthiest.

[Guest Davka]

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.

*ahem*

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Guest Davka]

The universe exists. You want more evidence than that?

 

I believe the question is how and why the universe exists.

 

 

No, the question is:

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

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

 

Nope. Big Bang, expansion until attraction reverses direction, deflation until Big Crunch, creating a singularity which, unstable, creates a Big Bang . . .

 

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

Seems that the data is not working in your favor as the universe is expanding at an increasing velocity. What is your evidence that this will reverse? Also, what is your evidence that there would be enough energy to create a second Big Bang? It seems that you have left the realm of science and crossed into metaphysics.

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

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

 

I merely clarified the Big Crunch model for you.

 

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

 

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

You seem to misunderstand much of what you have read. It is pure speculation to posit the necessity of the First Cause being either intelligent or personal. I defy you to show me a single respected astrophysicist who claims such a thing.

 

Nice. You who have thrown out assertions with no backing are now telling me that I have misunderstood what I have read. So, let me get this straight before we go further, are you now accepting that there was a beginning to the universe?

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

 

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

 

Come off it. You asked me to prove that the universe "is not finite." I pointed out that you are asking me to prove a negative. You claim that because you have a semantic pile of gobbledygook, proving that something is not true is somehow different from proving a negative.

 

I suppose this same line of drek proves that black is white.

 

You just don't seem to read my posts. I am asking you to prove that the universe is eternal, that is a positive assertion on your part for which you should be able to show evidential support. There is nothing negative about that assertion. It seems that you are trying to avoid giving evidence for your assertion. I have given evidence to show that the universe is finite, now I am asking you to show evidence that it is past eternal.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Get thee to a university. Your ignorance is abysmal.

[Ouroboros]

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

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

[Ouroboros]

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

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

 

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

 

The Kalam argument is consistently self-refuting.

[NotBlinded]

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

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

Just call it the present.

[Ouroboros]

I want to ask more questions, but they are probably incredibly stupid.

Yes. They are.

 

 

 

No, they're not. I'm just a very arrogant kind'a guy online, but I'm nicer in real life.

 

Questions can't really be stupid, since they're about not knowing or not understanding.

 

Only answers can be stupid, because they can be completely wrong, or be intentionally portrayed as truth even when they're not.

 

Mostly you just blew my mind.

Oh-oh. I hope I didn't offend or hurt you, because it wasn't my intention.

[Guest Davka]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Ouroboros]

Can there be time outside of the universe, that God, matter or anything else could exist in eternally?

Yes. I believe so. We can't test it, but we can reason and do models of it, but we can't really test it. The problem is that we have a very limited understanding of the Universe. I think we really don't understand "time" correctly at all. The Hilbert's Hotel Paradox used by Craig to argue against an infinite past might be completely misleading. Perhaps the infinite past exist because infinite past and future coexists? I don't think we can say for sure. But the key is, if infinite past exists, then of course an infinite past God could theoretically exist too, but then the Kalaam argument would fall on another part.

 

You just can't prove or argue God. If you could, we would all be believers. If God was such an easy task, we wouldn't have doubters or thousands of alternative beliefs. It's obvious that the evidence isn't there and the arguments too weak. According to Hebrew 11:1, real faith is when you believe without the evidence and proofs, so when people try too hard to find it, it's a sign of weakness and lack of belief.

 

and then I'm trying to think of a word or state that means something exists, without being time dependent, and that is also blowing my mind.

Exactly. The argument is made to assume that there can be such a thing, and that thing is assumed to be God, even before the Kalaam syllogism is made. It's the fallacy of begging the question. It assumes the conclusion at the point of first premise.

 

Another thing that's frustrating is that you can see all these problems, but the apologist solves it by using fancy words like immutable, ubiquitous, or omniscient, etc, to avoid the pitfalls of the paradoxes. But they don't solve it, they just redefine the rules. It's like playing some new board game, and you're told by your friend that you can't move a piece more than 2 steps at a time. Then suddenly he moves it 3 steps and you ask why. He answer, "because it's a special condition when the immutable omnipresence of the astronomical zyzygy of periodontal conglomerates coincide with my intentional superposition of non-argumentative idiations!" And somehow this nonsensical bullshit is supposed to liberate them from the rules the rest of us must abide to (according to their rule book). And whenever we then take three steps, we are told we are breaking the rules and we can't make up any explanations to why, because the rules are the rules. They basically want to do whatever they want, while we cannot.

 

Just put it in this current situation about the Kalaam. We are not allowed to put anything to exist before the beginning of time/space/Universe. However, they claim they are allowed to put God as a super-special entity of existence with property which breaks the rules, before the beginning of time/space/Universe. They want special treatment.

[NotBlinded]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Antlerman]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Hot diggity. Progress. Stepping 'out of time', experiencing 'timelessness' opens perception to the nature of the Universe, and pulls you of the world of perceived cause and effect and a shallow view of reality with our ego at the center of it.

 

This whole business of First Cause places everything outside of it, just as the cue stick is not the cue ball. These analogies, like the watchmaker's argument fail when looking at the natural system itself as a whole. It's extrapolating components of it on lower levels to the function of the higher levels. It's a material-centric worldview. If we instead evolve to perceive the Universe as a whole, then we can move beyond such things as the ego-centric, mythological frameworks that of our past which apologist Christians argue to prop up in the face of our moving forward.

 

I said to my son recently, there's a reason why we progress, and with each change there are new obstacles, problems, and pathologies that arise as we grow. But to argue to go back to the past in response to the new challenges, back to the more immature world perceived as ruled by gods and angels, is not the solution. It's a Romantic, delusional nostalgia which would of necessity demand we divest ourselves of everything that was gained since moving past it. Our perceptions must change to meet the new worlds we have been pulled forward into in order to evolve.

 

The modern apologist is a symptom of our growing pains. It's an adolescent's resistance to growing up.

[NotBlinded]

Hot diggity. Progress. Stepping 'out of time', experiencing 'timelessness' opens perception to the nature of the Universe, and pulls you of the world of perceived cause and effect and a shallow view of reality with our ego at the center of it.

 

This whole business of First Cause places everything outside of it, just as the cue stick is not the cue ball. These analogies, like the watchmaker's argument fail when looking at the natural system itself as a whole. It's extrapolating components of it on lower levels to the function of the higher levels. It's a material-centric worldview. If we instead evolve to perceive the Universe as a whole, then we can move beyond such things as the ego-centric, mythological frameworks that of our past which apologist Christians argue to prop up in the face of our moving forward.

 

I said to my son recently, there's a reason why we progress, and with each change there are new obstacles, problems, and pathologies that arise as we grow. But to argue to go back to the past in response to the new challenges, back to the more immature world perceived as ruled by gods and angels, is not the solution. It's a Romantic, delusional nostalgia which would of necessity demand we divest ourselves of everything that was gained since moving past it. Our perceptions must change to meet the new worlds we have been pulled forward into in order to evolve.

 

The modern apologist is a symptom of our growing pains. It's an adolescent's resistance to growing up.

Fascinating indeed. And honest to God, I love how things fit together. I posted a link to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness in a thread in the Lion's Den, yet it is applicable here too. Synchronicity?

 

Look at this:

 

Process philosophy’s pantemporalism is articulated in several essays in this volume, including those by Bjelland, Hurley, Stapp, Cobb, Čapek, and me. However, the crucial point, mentioned earlier, needs to be developed here. For Whitehead, the reality of time, with its irreversibility, is based on the fact that the actual world is composed exhaustively of momentary events that include, partially but really, preceding events, which had in turn included previous events, and so on back. In Whitehead’s words: “This passage of the cause into the effect is the cumulative character of time. The irreversibility of time depends on this character” (1978, 237).

 

Because of this character of events, a present event is not independent of previous events; rather, it presupposes just those events, since it includes them and is largely constituted by this inclusion. Because of this essential inclusion of prior events, the idea of successive events occurring independently of each other arises only by abstracting from the full reality of the events.

 

Time in the concrete is the conformation of state to state, the later to the earlier; . . . pure succession is an abstraction of the second order, a generic abstraction omitting the temporal character of time. . . . The immediate present has to conform to what the past is for it, and the mere lapse of time is an abstraction from the more concrete relatedness of “conformation.” (Whitehead, 1959, 36)

 

It is therefore a fallacy to think of the real events or things making up the world as having the property of “simple location,” which would mean that they could be satisfactorily described without reference to prior and following events.26 This is no small point, since the traditions of Humean and thereby Kantian philosophy have presupposed just this idea of events as “simply occurring.”27 That is, the events in themselves were held to have no inherent conformal relationship to prior events. These philosophical traditions are thereby based on the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

 

And this:

 

The widespread idea that physical events could in principle start running backwards presupposes the idea that temporal order is pure succession. We know that it is nonsense to think of our own experience as running backwards because we know, at some level, that the order of our experiences is not that of pure succession, but of the partial derivation of later from earlier experience, with partial conformation of later to earlier. In Whitehead’s words:

 

Time is known to us as the succession of our acts of experience. . . . But this succession is not pure succession: it is the derivation of state from state, with the later state exhibiting conformity to the antecedent. Time in the concrete is the conformation of state to state, the later to the earlier; and the pure succession is an abstraction from the irreversible relationship of settled past to derivative present. (1959, 35)

 

Most people would agree that this correctly describes human experience, but they do not see how it could apply to “purely physical” processes. Yet Whitehead suggests that it does: the deleted words in the above quotation are: “and thence derivately as the succession of events objectively perceived in those acts.” Because he, on the basis of an evolutionary, nondualistic outlook, takes unitary “physical events” to be not different in kind from the “mental events” constituting our own immediately known experience, he can hold that time as “known to us in the succession of our acts of experience” can be attributed by analogy to “the succession of events objectively perceived in those acts.” I put “physical events” and “mental events” in scare quotes to indicate that this dualistic language is mistaken from the perspective of process philosophy. The difference between the proton and the psyche is one of degree, not of kind (in an ontological sense). One who holds otherwise is a dualist, no matter how odious such a designation may be.

Time and the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness

 

God, I love this stuff.

[LNC]

LNC,

 

Have you ever read any Quentin Smith? Read this paper especially because it deals with the Kalam argument.

 

I'm going to suggest again that cause and effect are one and the same only separated by measuring changes with another measurement we call time.

 

Anyway, check out some of Dr. Smith's writtings.

 

Here is an excerpt with the assumption that the universe must have a cause:

 

{did not include quoted text for brevity}

 

It seems that Smith is equivocating with his use of language when he says that the cause and effect are simultaneous. I don't think that is the case as each effect actually has a cause in the other body (planet or moon) passing by, while it at the same time acts as a cause for the effect of the other body. This is not the same as saying that it is the cause of its own effect, which is where I believe the equivocation comes in. Maybe you understand this differently and if so, please explain how you understand it.

 

The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused Itself to Exist

 

Oh, I found this part enlightening.

 

{removed quoted text for brevity}

 

IMO, God is not something that is separate from the universe itself. It is all. It is the I AM in your language. It is the beginning and the end.

 

I don't see why God cannot be separate from the universe itself. I posted this in another thread, but here is a rebuttal to Smith's position by William Lane Craig. Craig argues that God's will/choice to create the universe coincided with his act to create the universe. That overcomes Smith's objection and allows God to exist independent of the universe. So, in this view, God exists timelessly until he wills the universe into existence and then comes into time with the creation of the universe. His willful act coincides with his creative act.

[LNC]

I have always looked down on the Cosmological argument as just a glorified God of the Gaps. It takes an unknown variable ( That causes cannot be infinite, which by the way we know is false at least in the mathematical sense due to irrational numbers. ) asserts it to be true, and then asserts that the cause is xian God. Not the great Dwarf, Not a currently unknown scientific inquiry, Not Aliens, Not Krishna, Not Allah, Not the Deist God, Not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but clearly it must be the God of the Christian Bible. This kind of argument has been debunked a thousand times. Even if the first assertions to the cosmological argument were true, the correct and honest answer would still be "I don't know".

 

The cosmological argument is actually the opposite of God in the gaps. It is based upon what we know, not what we don't know. The same would be true of the design argument. There is a difference between what we can do mathematically and theoretically and what we can actualize or instantiate in the real world. If you don't believe me, count to infinity, or merely divide a finite segment into infinite sections ala Zeno's paradox. It cannot be done.

 

I don't believe that I have argued for the Christian God with this argument. It is true that this argument does not necessarily argue for the Christian God; I use other arguments to arrive at that conclusion; however, it does argue for an uncreated intelligent agent as the cause of the universe. So in essence, you have created a straw man argument to knock down. Your concluding statement is also false as the conclusion is that the universe has a cause and that cause must be supernatural as the natural world is the effect.

[Guest Davka]

The modern apologist is a symptom of our growing pains. It's an adolescent's resistance to growing up.

Snap! I love this - can I steal it and use it as my sig?

 

 

 

 

Fascinating indeed. And honest to God, I love how things fit together. I posted a link to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness in a thread in the Lion's Den, yet it is applicable here too. Synchronicity?

 

Look at this:

 

Because of this character of events, a present event is not independent of previous events; rather, it presupposes just those events, since it includes them and is largely constituted by this inclusion. Because of this essential inclusion of prior events, the idea of successive events occurring independently of each other arises only by abstracting from the full reality of the events.

 

Too cool. Just - way too cool.

 

Time in the concrete is the conformation of state to state, the later to the earlier; . . . pure succession is an abstraction of the second order, a generic abstraction omitting the temporal character of time. . . . The immediate present has to conform to what the past is for it, and the mere lapse of time is an abstraction from the more concrete relatedness of “conformation.” (Whitehead, 1959, 36)

 

The "mere" lapse of time. Yes, it's a side-effect of reality, not the core.

 

It is therefore a fallacy to think of the real events or things making up the world as having the property of “simple location,” which would mean that they could be satisfactorily described without reference to prior and following events. This is no small point, since the traditions of Humean and thereby Kantian philosophy have presupposed just this idea of events as “simply occurring.” That is, the events in themselves were held to have no inherent conformal relationship to prior events. These philosophical traditions are thereby based on the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

 

OK, so if concreteness is a fallacy . . . is he saying that reality is fluid? I get the whole "interconnectedness" thing, but I'm not too clear on what he's getting at with the phrase "misplaced concreteness."

 

Do I have to read the book, or can you give me the Cliff's Notes?

[Ouroboros]

So, in this view, God exists timelessly until he wills the universe into existence and then comes into time with the creation of the universe.

Bzzzzt! Error! Does not compute!

 

To "exist timelessly until" the universe come into existence, is to exist before time comes into existence, and this is a contradiction. Nothing exists until time starts. It's division by zero again. So, no. For God to exist NOW, he had to come into existence the same moment as the Universe. God cannot have existed in an infinite past. So it makes more sense to argue that God is a self-caused Causator, and hence, you're guilty of your own accusations. The God/First Cause did NOT exist BEFORE in any sense, since time BEGAN at Big Bang. Do you get this simple concept? Or should I use the Hotel Paradox to explain why infinite past cannot exist? When did God create the Universe? How could he arrive to a "now" if he doesn't have time, nor can exist from infinite past? These problems are not solved by using gobbledygook.

 

--edit--

 

An addition: not only can there be no "until" before time began, but how the heck can there be "until" in a timeless existence? Timeless means no until-s. God can't exist timeless and then suddenly "one day" do something. It's simply ludicrous. Why don't ask which apple is the largest, has the deepest red color, and tastes best, in an apple-less box?

[NotBlinded]

It is therefore a fallacy to think of the real events or things making up the world as having the property of “simple location,” which would mean that they could be satisfactorily described without reference to prior and following events. This is no small point, since the traditions of Humean and thereby Kantian philosophy have presupposed just this idea of events as “simply occurring.” That is, the events in themselves were held to have no inherent conformal relationship to prior events. These philosophical traditions are thereby based on the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

 

OK, so if concreteness is a fallacy . . . is he saying that reality is fluid? I get the whole "interconnectedness" thing, but I'm not too clear on what he's getting at with the phrase "misplaced concreteness."

 

Do I have to read the book, or can you give me the Cliff's Notes?

From what I understand, yes, he is saying that reality is fluid and interconnected. There is nothing that is not in motion and this motion is always in relation to something else which makes what it is to be as such. So, to take away this correspondence to other "things" is to commit the fallacy. That's not explaining it very good. The saying, "nothing exists in a vacuum" might be appropriate here.

 

If we look at something as not existing (as time), we have taken away this interconntectedness and made it into a concrete notion that it doesn't exist. It took me awhile to understand this negation as the fallacy (in regards to time) because I had to think in reverse. If we look at a quantum level and claim that time doesn't exist because it appears to be instantaneous commits the fallacy.

 

Quote:

 

From this perspective, the natural sciences, at least as practiced thus far, methodologically abstract from the full concreteness of the entities or processes they study. Therefore, to jump from the mere fact that time is not present in natural science to the conclusion that time is not real at the fundamental level of nature is to commit the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness.” The fallacy is to treat the abstractions from certain things—as abstractions focused on because of certain interests and methods—as if they were the concrete things themselves.

 

Another:

 

The thesis implied by the title of Whitehead’s major book, Process and Reality, is that process is the concrete reality of things and, conversely, that concrete realities are processes.15 From this viewpoint, time, or temporality, is an ultimate feature of reality. It is not itself an actual or concrete entity; it is a relation—a relation of conformity to and inclusion of the past. This is a version of the relational theory of time.

 

And another quote:

 

The term constant becoming is used to point to the fact that the present, or “now,” does not “stand still,” as some put it. More precisely, the present “now” never divides the same sets of events into past and future. In each new “now” there are events in the past that were not there before and that previously had been at most anticipated as possible, or perhaps probable, events. This is the feature of time that has been asserted by many writers to be most totally absent from physics. Physical theory is usually said to be indifferent to any idea of becoming, of events previously “in the future” coming into present existence.9 This would be all the more the case if this idea were taken to include the idea that this coming into existence involves the transformation of potentialities into actualities.

 

In my mind, I see in this fallacy things being created as they are to where no process is occurring. As in "things created after their own kind" sort of thinking. This is a mistake, IMO. All things have in them already the probabilities of their existence and the past probabilities that became actualities, yet they are never "concrete" as in no motion or relation.

 

If you will notice LNC addresses this in his response to my post here:

 

It seems that Smith is equivocating with his use of language when he says that the cause and effect are simultaneous. I don't think that is the case as each effect actually has a cause in the other body (planet or moon) passing by, while it at the same time acts as a cause for the effect of the other body. This is not the same as saying that it is the cause of its own effect, which is where I believe the equivocation comes in. Maybe you understand this differently and if so, please explain how you understand it.

 

LNC wants to separate a unity that cannot be separated by discounting its realtional and fluid properties. There are no causes outside of effects and vis-a-versa. There is nowhere in the universe that a single existent exists...in a vacuum. He also makes the mistake of putting God outside of time until time began and he came into time. Now, if God is a temporal being, then the relationship between events (which exist only in time and time doesn't exist apart from events) and this "God" could be real. If God is non-temporal and time is part of the creation then no relationship exists. The fallacy, I believe, would also be to remove a temporal "God" from reality. Yes, it's an argument much like Bohm's.

 

Maybe evolution could be used as an example by saying the genes mutate, but they don't disappear. They are all still there as the past progression up to the now yet they also have in them the probabilities of future mutations depending on the environment (relationships)?

 

Did that help any? My explanations suck...

 

I have to edit for LNC's sake and bold the part below that leaves the door open for pantheism or panentheism. But, not for an external entity.

 

He states this here:

 

In this case, the universe begins to exist, is caused to begin to exist, but is not caused to begin to exist by God or any other cause(s) external to the universe. Perhaps it is worth spelling this out in detail. The universe at t = 0 is nothing other than the particles’ temporal parts a and b and c. Each of these time-slices of the particles is caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, namely, by one of the time-slices or states of one of the other three particles. If the universe at t = 0 is a, b and c, and a, b and c are each caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, it follows that the universe is caused to begin to exist, but not by anything external to the universe. The universe is self-caused in the sense that each part of the universe is caused to exist by some other part of the universe.

[skepticalme]

The cosmological argument is actually the opposite of God in the gaps.

No its not. We don't know the cause of the universe so you are assuming that it must be god.

It is based upon what we know, not what we don't know.

That is the pattern for all "god of the gap" fallacies. If the argument didn't contain things we knew then there would be no gaps in which to place god. The only difference is that the gap is not in between the "facts" being stated. Th gap is the conclusion, in which you are placing god.

[NotBlinded]

The cosmological argument is actually the opposite of God in the gaps.

No its not. We don't know the cause of the universe so you are assuming that it must be god.

It is based upon what we know, not what we don't know.

That is the pattern for all "god of the gap" fallacies. If the argument didn't contain things we knew then there would be no gaps in which to place god. The only difference is that the gap is not in between the "facts" being stated. Th gap is the conclusion, in which you are placing god.

Welcome to the site stucker ( I typed your name slow so I wouldn't mess it up!)

[LNC]

Hello.

 

I've just joined today and this is my first post - so please be lenient if I'm making some horrible error.

 

My question is for any Christians using this forum.

 

What is your opinion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument as proposed by William Lane Craig? Some Christians I've talked to consider it to be a bona fide proof of God's existence, others think it just provides support for Christianity.

 

Here's a link about it.

 

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Argument

 

For the record, I was an Evangelical Christian before rejecting Jesus as a false God. Please do not let this information influence your reply. I would much rather you discuss the Kalam and not the fate of my immortal soul.

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

 

 

p.s.

Yes, I know I've misspelt it - that's just a private joke.

 

 

Hello again.

 

Well I can see that the KCA has been talked over a lot here already, but, as the initiator of this thread and a newbie to boot, could I politely request some help in understanding this Argument better?

I would have liked LCN's input, but, if that's not to be - then so be it.

 

Here's my reason for asking.

When I was a born-again evangelical Christian I was aware of the KCA, I read about it and discussed it with my fellow Christians. Yet, I was taught that while it provided support for Christianity, it did not actually prove the existence of the Christian God. My primary focus for proof was the Resurrection. I learned, accepted and believed that all of Christianity stood or fell on the historical reality of that event. So, while the KCA was a useful support - that's all it was. Instead, I was encouraged to keep my eyes and my focus directly on Jesus.

 

Now that I am an Atheist I find that the KCA has gained much more importance and regularly crops up in discussions with Theists and Christians. This puzzles me because more and more Christians seem to be using it to "prove" the basis of what they believe. Since the KCA was never designed to be a proof I've therefore decided to dig deeper and explore why this is. Hence this thread. I simply want to understand more, ok?

 

Anyway, here are some questions regard the KCA. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks.

 

1. What kind of Argument is the KCA? http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument This Wikipedia page lists Deductive, Inductive, Defeasible and Analogical Arguments. Presumably the KCA is one of these?

 

2. I see that the Premises and Conclusion of an Argument are defined as, "Truthbearers". I find the Wikipedia explanation of this term difficult to grasp. How does one go about verifying the "truth" of a truthbearing Premise and/or Conclusion? Help please!

 

3. I've read that the KCA is used to support the Teleological Argument (for a Designed Universe) and the Moral Argument (for a Moral Lawgiver). Without the KCA establishing an Uncaused Cause there can be no Designer and no Moral Lawgiver. Is this conclusion correct?

 

Thank you,

 

BornAgainAthiest.

 

The basic argument can be stated in two premises and a conclusion. It reads as follows:

 

1. Everything that began to exist has a cause for its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.

 

The argument doesn't argue for a certain God, it only argues that all matter space and time had a cause that is, logically, outside of matter space and time. Logically, a thing cannot be the cause of its own existence, and the universe would fall into that category. Scientifically, the models and data that we now have indicate that the universe is past-finite, i.e., it had a beginning. Since the universe, by definition, accounts for all matter, space and time, it follows that the cause had to be outside of matter, space and time. I therefore propose that an immaterial, timeless mind is the cause of the universe.

 

KCA is an inductive argument and more specifically, an abductive argument (argument to the best explanation).

 

The first premise is a logical axiom (intuitive). We cannot prove it; however, everything that we experience seems to verify the validity of this axiom. Premise 2 is supported by the best scientific modeling and data that we have today. It was not always believed that the universe began to exist as for many years the "steady state" model was the leading model. However, since the Big Bang theory was developed, it has only been further verified by experimental data. The Big Bang model seems to indicate that the universe began in the finite past.

 

I think that you are mistaken on your third point in that KCA is not used, necessarily to support the argument from design (teleological argument) or the moral argument. Often, the three are used together as a cumulative case to argue for the existence of God, and a personal, moral God at that. However, each argument stands on its own.

 

Good questions.

[Legion]

Again I ask... What sense does it make to say that time began?

 

Time began.

 

Think about that.

 

I am not convinced that the physicists are correct about the Big Bang.

[Ouroboros]

 

KCA is an inductive argument and more specifically, an abductive argument (argument to the best explanation).

Very good. I'm glad that you recognize that.

 

The argument is however stated as a deductive syllogism, so the argument is a bit devious. It shouldn't be presented in a box of deduction if it really is not. But anyway, I'm glad that you recognize the argument for what it is. I think it's an improvement on your part.

[Ouroboros]

Again I ask... What sense does it make to say that time began?

 

Time began.

 

Think about that.

 

I am not convinced that the physicists are correct about the Big Bang.

Agree.

 

And is it even correct to say that time exists? When does time exist? And how does time exist? Can we describe time? And if absolute time exists, then what about Einstein's theory of relativity?