Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The KCA

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 8:51:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What do you guys think of this video? I though that it was pretty good. He basically rejects the first premise(whatever begins to exist has a cause) by saying whatever begins to exist has a cause, but it is made of other things. For example, a chair is made of wood and nails. Nothing begin to exist ex nihilo, thus the universe did not begin to exist ex nihilo.

Do Christian's advocate an ex nihilo creation? If so, it seems that you are fvcked. Of course, I could be wrong, but I couldn't come up with any arguments against it.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 9:33:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 8:51:33 AM, seraine wrote:
What do you guys think of this video? I though that it was pretty good. He basically rejects the first premise(whatever begins to exist has a cause) by saying whatever begins to exist has a cause, but it is made of other things. For example, a chair is made of wood and nails. Nothing begin to exist ex nihilo, thus the universe did not begin to exist ex nihilo.

Do Christian's advocate an ex nihilo creation? If so, it seems that you are fvcked. Of course, I could be wrong, but I couldn't come up with any arguments against it.

The sad part is while a majority of actual philosophers have considered Kalams dead and buried years ago, theologians swindle lay-idiots(such as most members of this board) into thinking it still has any credibility, so that atheists still have to debunk it time and time again.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:18:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is a fundamentally bad argument in my opinion.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 11:44:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 8:51:33 AM, seraine wrote:
What do you guys think of this video? I though that it was pretty good. He basically rejects the first premise(whatever begins to exist has a cause) by saying whatever begins to exist has a cause, but it is made of other things. For example, a chair is made of wood and nails. Nothing begin to exist ex nihilo, thus the universe did not begin to exist ex nihilo.

Do Christian's advocate an ex nihilo creation? If so, it seems that you are fvcked. Of course, I could be wrong, but I couldn't come up with any arguments against it.

It's a bad argument in advocating in the video you posted. There are serious objections to the KCA. This is not, and never has been, one of them.

From the video he says begins to exist = x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t and there is no time prior to t at which x exists.

More technically he says begins to exist = "for any entity e and time t:

e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e's existing at t is a tensed fact."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

This applies to both things that begin to exist that are made up out of previously existent material and things that aren't.

Or, said a different way, it doesn't seem impossible for there to exist a efficient cause without a material cause.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 12:05:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 11:44:52 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This applies to both things that begin to exist that are made up out of previously existent material and things that aren't.

The problem is one of justification though. Craig usually defends the first premise with the argument that it's self-evident that all things that begin to exist have a cause.

But there are multiple explanations for that belief: either it's innate knowledge (which does seem plausible from psychological experiments on infants) or it's a product of our experience, or both.

If our belief that all things begin to exist have a cause is so certain because of experience, we have a problem. All the experiences of causation we have are fundamentally different from the creation of the universe ex nihilo - for the obvious reason that nothing in our immediate experience pops into existence from nothing.

Obviously, the biggest initial hurdle for Kalam comes from relativity against the second premise, but the first doesn't get a completely free pass.

Also, I don't know if it's just me, maybe I'm weird, but I actually don't have that much of a problem with thinking about something just randomly 'happening' without an explanation. There doesn't seem to me to be that much of a problem with the idea of an orange just randomly popping into existence from nothing.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 12:18:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Existence itself is the what is without cause. And the universe is literally existence.

If there is something outside of what people commonly refer to as the universe, what they are referring to as the universe is not truly the universe.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 12:21:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 12:05:23 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 11:44:52 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This applies to both things that begin to exist that are made up out of previously existent material and things that aren't.

The problem is one of justification though. Craig usually defends the first premise with the argument that it's self-evident that all things that begin to exist have a cause.

But there are multiple explanations for that belief: either it's innate knowledge (which does seem plausible from psychological experiments on infants) or it's a product of our experience, or both.


Why couldn't it be a priori justified?

If our belief that all things begin to exist have a cause is so certain because of experience, we have a problem. All the experiences of causation we have are fundamentally different from the creation of the universe ex nihilo - for the obvious reason that nothing in our immediate experience pops into existence from nothing.

Obviously, the biggest initial hurdle for Kalam comes from relativity against the second premise, but the first doesn't get a completely free pass.

Also, I don't know if it's just me, maybe I'm weird, but I actually don't have that much of a problem with thinking about something just randomly 'happening' without an explanation. There doesn't seem to me to be that much of a problem with the idea of an orange just randomly popping into existence from nothing.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 12:34:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 12:21:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/15/2011 12:05:23 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 11:44:52 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This applies to both things that begin to exist that are made up out of previously existent material and things that aren't.

The problem is one of justification though. Craig usually defends the first premise with the argument that it's self-evident that all things that begin to exist have a cause.

But there are multiple explanations for that belief: either it's innate knowledge (which does seem plausible from psychological experiments on infants) or it's a product of our experience, or both.


Why couldn't it be a priori justified?


It can be dismissed a priori just as easily as it can be justified.

The only truly justified position is one that admits ignorance.

What you will find is that there aren't many people who will say that something comes from nothing. Theists and non-theists alike argue over something they fundamentally agree on, and that is that the universe didn't just come out of no where for no fuggin reason.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 1:07:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 12:21:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Why couldn't it be a priori justified?

Eh, I agree: it could be, in which case the objection doesn't work. I think the theist still has some work explaining why we have that a priori belief though, and why it's justified. There are some things most people intuitively believe that are just false.
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 1:23:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I refuted kca in my debate. P
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 3:16:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I still don't understand why the KCA is still taken seriously, it assumes too much.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 3:22:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That there was a point when existence didn't exist.. Which is about as close as getting something from nothing as you can get.

The universe is all of existence, if God is outside the universe, God doesn't exist, and it makes the whole argument silly from the get go.

But no, really, the assumption is that the universe had a start, when for all we know it has always been here.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 3:27:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 3:22:51 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
That there was a point when existence didn't exist.. Which is about as close as getting something from nothing as you can get.

The universe is all of existence, if God is outside the universe, God doesn't exist, and it makes the whole argument silly from the get go.

But no, really, the assumption is that the universe had a start, when for all we know it has always been here.

1. No, it only assumes that there was a point at which space-time did not exist.

2. That's circular reasoning, you're basically assumed a ll existence to be spatio-temporal.

3. No. The KCA does not assume that, it *argues* for it. You may think the arguments fail, but it's certainly not an assumption.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 3:44:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 3:27:46 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 10/15/2011 3:22:51 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
That there was a point when existence didn't exist.. Which is about as close as getting something from nothing as you can get.

The universe is all of existence, if God is outside the universe, God doesn't exist, and it makes the whole argument silly from the get go.

But no, really, the assumption is that the universe had a start, when for all we know it has always been here.

1. No, it only assumes that there was a point at which space-time did not exist.


The universe is all that exists. Regardless, you are still pointing out an assumption here.

2. That's circular reasoning, you're basically assumed a ll existence to be spatio-temporal.


It isn't circular reasoning. The universe is all that exists. If God is external from the universe, God doesn't exist. It makes no sense to separate the two.

3. No. The KCA does not assume that, it *argues* for it. You may think the arguments fail, but it's certainly not an assumption.

Yeah, the argument tends to be an assertion of the impossibility of infinity, or something along those lines.. Which in itself is justified by more unjustified assumptions.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 3:47:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But the real kicker is that somehow this argument leads to the conclusion that the theistic conception of god is true or at least probable.

The theistic conception of god itself has far too much baggage attached to it.

Anyone who believes that they can be certain about such things has a very poor understanding of epistemology.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 3:49:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"The universe is all that exists."

1-2. That's an assumption. So if anything, you're the one making assumptions here. If you define all existence as being spatio-temporal (Which is inadequate, since if all existence is within space-time, then space-time itself doesn't exist), then of course you'll reach the conclusion that the KCA is unsound. But you have to argue for that assumption, instead of saying that we're the ones assuming. You're basically saying "The KCA is unsound because God doesn't exist." Well that's fine and dandy, but you have to argue for it instead of assuming the conclusion.

3. The argument is that the existence of an actually infinite temporal regress in reality is impossible because you can't perform mathematical operations on actually infinite sets. An argument is given at every step. What are the assumptions here?

Saying that the argument "makes too many assumptions" isn't a rebuttal.

Get real.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 3:54:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 3:49:54 PM, Contradiction wrote:
"The universe is all that exists."

1-2. That's an assumption. So if anything, you're the one making assumptions here. If you define all existence as being spatio-temporal (Which is inadequate, since if all existence is within space-time, then space-time itself doesn't exist), then of course you'll reach the conclusion that the KCA is unsound. But you have to argue for that assumption, instead of saying that we're the ones assuming. You're basically saying "The KCA is unsound because God doesn't exist." Well that's fine and dandy, but you have to argue for it instead of assuming the conclusion.

3. The argument is that the existence of an actually infinite temporal regress in reality is impossible because you can't perform mathematical operations on actually infinite sets. An argument is given at every step. What are the assumptions here?

Saying that the argument "makes too many assumptions" isn't a rebuttal.

Get real.

No, I'm not saying that the universe is all that exists, I am saying that the universe LITERALLY means "all that exists". The universe is literally existence. If something is outside of existence, it doesn't exist.

The infinite and The One are the same thing. Our understanding relies on us dividing The One into parts, but these divisions don't actually exist. These are concepts that are relativistic in nature and come from a human's understanding. Objectively, they are phantoms.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:01:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 3:54:54 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
No, I'm not saying that the universe is all that exists, I am saying that the universe LITERALLY means "all that exists". The universe is literally existence. If something is outside of existence, it doesn't exist.

Come on, that's a silly semantics argument: that isn't what 'universe' means in the context of Kalam. Qualify universe with 'physical' if you're that hung up about it. P2 really means 'the physical universe began to exist', excluding supernatural phenomena.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:06:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 4:01:34 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 3:54:54 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
No, I'm not saying that the universe is all that exists, I am saying that the universe LITERALLY means "all that exists". The universe is literally existence. If something is outside of existence, it doesn't exist.

Come on, that's a silly semantics argument: that isn't what 'universe' means in the context of Kalam. Qualify universe with 'physical' if you're that hung up about it. P2 really means 'the physical universe began to exist', excluding supernatural phenomena.

I already addressed this by pointing out that it is still an assumption to hold that the physical universe had a start.

Supernatural is an absurdity, and there is no good reason to assume its existence.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:10:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Contra, please answer these questions:

In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least:

1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist?
o If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question?
o If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated?
2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world?
o If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question?
o If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?
3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself?
o If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings? [

If you want to do a similar debate, challenge me.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:21:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It appears that all have missed this point thus far (though I could have read over someone who posted it).

God is by definition a metaphysical being.

Like numbers that exist independent of the universe.

So Kalam's argument is that everything physical that began to exist had a cause.

We know numerical values never had a cause and will never cease to exist even after the great heat death of the universe.

All of the universe was begotten through the being of the Metaphysical God.
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:24:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 4:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
It appears that all have missed this point thus far (though I could have read over someone who posted it).

God is by definition a metaphysical being.

Like numbers that exist independent of the universe.

So Kalam's argument is that everything physical that began to exist had a cause.

We know numerical values never had a cause and will never cease to exist even after the great heat death of the universe.

All of the universe was begotten through the being of the Metaphysical God.

Special pleading, I see. You may be interested to note that an actual infinity does exist. We call it a singularity.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:28:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 4:24:40 PM, kohai wrote:
At 10/15/2011 4:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
It appears that all have missed this point thus far (though I could have read over someone who posted it).

God is by definition a metaphysical being.

Like numbers that exist independent of the universe.

So Kalam's argument is that everything physical that began to exist had a cause.

We know numerical values never had a cause and will never cease to exist even after the great heat death of the universe.

All of the universe was begotten through the being of the Metaphysical God.

Special pleading, I see. You may be interested to note that an actual infinity does exist. We call it a singularity.

Metaphysical is by definition self existent.
Numerical values are self existent. Even if the entire universe was extinguished in the great heat death, seven would still be seven.

God is just such a self existent being. Even all physical "things" were destroyed in a great heat death, God would still exist. He is by nature not physical.

So when we say everything came into being from nothing physical, we are saying everything came into existence through God who is outside the physical realm.

It is definitions not special pleading.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:29:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 4:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
We know numerical values never had a cause and will never cease to exist even after the great heat death of the universe.

Interesting. So you deny the notion that God created everything apart from himself? I thought that was a fairly central Christian doctrine.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:32:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 4:06:02 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I already addressed this by pointing out that it is still an assumption to hold that the physical universe had a start.

It is not an assumption. Assumptions are propositions assumed to be true without evidence. Proponents of Kalam offer evidence from Big Bang cosmology and metaphysical arguments about infinity. You can point out the problems with those arguments, but you can't say that proponents of Kalam rely on an unwarranted assumption.

Supernatural is an absurdity, and there is no good reason to assume its existence.

Can't say I entirely disagree. :P
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 4:33:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/15/2011 4:29:01 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/15/2011 4:21:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
We know numerical values never had a cause and will never cease to exist even after the great heat death of the universe.

Interesting. So you deny the notion that God created everything apart from himself? I thought that was a fairly central Christian doctrine.

I affirm that everything is apart from God, but came into existence through His metaphysical being. The statement above affirms that as well.

It is to say that the numerical value of a number can never be destroyed by anything physical. Numerical values find themselves outside of the physical realm. If the physical realm completely ceases to exist numerical values would continue on independently.

As does God. The universe was generated from a metaphysical source being God.