Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kalam Cosmological Argument

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 1:42:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

What part of this arguments do Atheists dispute and why?

It seems very solid to me.

The universe certainly began to exist (Big Bang) and everything that began to exist has a cause... So, the Universe must have a cause...
President of DDO
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 1:51:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 1:42:35 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.


What part of this arguments do Atheists dispute and why?

It seems very solid to me.

The universe certainly began to exist (Big Bang) and everything that began to exist has a cause... So, the Universe must have a cause...

Firstly it does not lead to god, even if it was valid, just merely a cause.

Though the argument is blatantly a fallacy of composition.

We label this set the universe:

(all things that have began to exist)

To attribute an attribute of the parts to the set is a fallacy.

As a famous Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga once said(paraphrased), the problem with this argument is the universe is not a "thing". That is where the problem comes in.
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.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 1:53:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 1:51:57 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/22/2011 1:42:35 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.


What part of this arguments do Atheists dispute and why?

It seems very solid to me.

The universe certainly began to exist (Big Bang) and everything that began to exist has a cause... So, the Universe must have a cause...

Firstly it does not lead to god, even if it was valid, just merely a cause.

Though the argument is blatantly a fallacy of composition.

We label this set the universe:

(all things that have began to exist)

To attribute an attribute of the parts to the set is a fallacy.

As a famous Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga once said(paraphrased), the problem with this argument is the universe is not a "thing". That is where the problem comes in.

Let me fix something, the univese is not merely one of those "things."
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.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 1:58:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 1:42:35 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.


What part of this arguments do Atheists dispute and why?

It seems very solid to me.

The universe certainly began to exist (Big Bang) and everything that began to exist has a cause... So, the Universe must have a cause...:

Everything in the known universe has a cause (every action has a reaction) for existence, absolutely, so it is a reasonable assumption to assume there is a cause for the existence of the universe.

The problem is that even supposing we can determine that there was a cause, we still don't know what the cause (intent or happenstances) that accounts for it. It doesn't answer the question that everyone really wants to know, which is why we are here and who or what is responsible for it.

It's no more or less valid of an argument for God than it the multiverse theory or a Pink Unicorns.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 2:15:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Big Bang doesn't mark the beginning of the universe, just the universe as it is recognizable today. There are actually multiple Big Bang Theories, and though it does have support from the data we have, it is not one of the most solid theories that we have.

The universe is literally all of existence. It seems rather silly to say that there was a time when there was no existence. There had to have always been existence in some form or another.

By definition, the universe can not be created, because if it was created, whatever created it had to have existed, and would have been part of the universe. If something is "outside" of the universe, it doesn't exist.

Theists attempt to use the KCA to prove God by making the observation that "something" coming from "nothing" is ridiculous. I agree with them, and I believe that most informed people would agree with them too. You aren't going to find many people who actually claim that "something" comes from "nothing". The people who claim this should not be taken as having the opinion of the majority of men of science, so refuting this idea is more of a waste of time than anything.

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

With the exception of existence itself. Existence is the only eternal thing.

2.The universe began to exist.

The universe IS existence, and if existence is the only eternal thing, it is absurd to claim that existence began to exist.

3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

If existence had a cause, certainly what we think of as existence is not truly 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
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 2:31:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 1:42:35 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
What part of this arguments do Atheists dispute and why?

For a start, the conclusion is not 'therefore God exists'. The cause of the universe could just as easily be the tooth fairy.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 2:40:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The point of a "cause" is that this "cause" must be God.

The idea is that existence does not randomly spring out of nonexistence. So, an omnipotent and eternal Being must exist... I.E. God.

Furthermore, the Big Bang has universal acceptance as the beginning of the universe... And, there is no reason that nothing could, except for God, have existed prior to the Big Bang... The Big Bang was the beginning of time, so there really was no "Before the Big Bang"...

Furthermore, that the Universe is everything strengthens this argument... God created everything...
President of DDO
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 2:41:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 2:31:10 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/22/2011 1:42:35 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
What part of this arguments do Atheists dispute and why?

For a start, the conclusion is not 'therefore God exists'. The cause of the universe could just as easily be the tooth fairy.

Wouldn't then that tooth fairy be God? I mean, God has to do something for fun.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 2:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 2:40:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The point of a "cause" is that this "cause" must be God.

The idea is that existence does not randomly spring out of nonexistence. So, an omnipotent and eternal Being must exist... I.E. God.

Furthermore, the Big Bang has universal acceptance as the beginning of the universe... And, there is no reason that nothing could, except for God, have existed prior to the Big Bang... The Big Bang was the beginning of time, so there really was no "Before the Big Bang"...

Furthermore, that the Universe is everything strengthens this argument... God created everything...

Did you read a single thing I wrote, or are you going to debate with people who conform to your misconceptions like every other wanker on this forum?
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
10/22/2011 4:31:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 4:24:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Dear Atheists,

Not everyone who believes in God is "Ignorant"...

Did anyone say that?

Now, are you going to continue to ignore me like every other theist on this forum, or are you going to actually acknowledge that I exist?
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
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 5:19:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 2:40:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The point of a "cause" is that this "cause" must be God.

The idea is that existence does not randomly spring out of nonexistence. So, an omnipotent and eternal Being must exist... I.E. God.

Furthermore, the Big Bang has universal acceptance as the beginning of the universe... And, there is no reason that nothing could, except for God, have existed prior to the Big Bang... The Big Bang was the beginning of time, so there really was no "Before the Big Bang"...

Furthermore, that the Universe is everything strengthens this argument... God created everything...

we don't know what happened before the big bang, we actually don't even know what the big bang was, what we actually know is up to fractions of a second before the big bang, I think this is referred to as plank time, before that we have no clue. The universe could have existed in another form before the big bang, it could have come from a multiverse, it could have come from the "nothing" that physicists refer to. No need to god of the gaps your god in here.
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
10/22/2011 5:41:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There was never a time when there was "nothing", this is patently ridiculous, and contrary to what people think, it is not something that is accepted as being "truth" by the majority of physicists.

The whole, "something from nothing" idea is a terrible straw man of the scientific position.

Also, for the record, I'd like to add that the Big Bang Theory was originally conceived by a Christian. A Catholic, I believe.
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
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 6:01:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 5:41:44 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There was never a time when there was "nothing", this is patently ridiculous, and contrary to what people think, it is not something that is accepted as being "truth" by the majority of physicists.

The whole, "something from nothing" idea is a terrible straw man of the scientific position.


Also, for the record, I'd like to add that the Big Bang Theory was originally conceived by a Christian. A Catholic, I believe.

the problem is when physicists refer to nothing, its not the same nothingness that christians think of.
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.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 6:10:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The point of the Argument is the logical conclusion that necessary follows.

The cause had to be one of the following.
An arbitrary force -
A being -

Now its just a process of determining which one it is.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 6:15:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 6:10:45 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The point of the Argument is the logical conclusion that necessary follows.

The cause had to be one of the following.
An arbitrary force -
A being -

Now its just a process of determining which one it is.

well darn it all to hell, lets ignore the fallacy of composition and just pretend a fallacious argument is good and do just that

Hmm multiveses gets you the same results. Occams razor is a b$tch for theists.

Did I mention that Inductive reasoning is also a b$itch for theists. Most complex things that we know exist are caused by non-personal causes: Galaxies,solar systems, planets, stars, trees, mountains,comets....need I really go on). All of those thiings exist without a single sign of intelligent creation, yet god wanters ignore this and only take into account the things they see that are complex and have evidence for design. That is f'n hilarious.

Man occam's razor and inductive reasoning are a motherfucster.
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.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 6:48:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 1:42:35 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.


What part of this arguments do Atheists dispute and why?

It seems very solid to me.

The universe certainly began to exist (Big Bang) and everything that began to exist has a cause... So, the Universe must have a cause...

Since the only thing that binds atheists is a lack of belief in a god, it is impossible to say that all atheists must disagree with this argument on the same point.

Personally, I dispute 2. The "Big Bang" moment is merely a reference point. Current scientific models break down, making it impossible to describe the universe at that time. We can't say that the universe began at that point, or began at all. Sorry.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 7:22:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Firstly, Craig's recently updated Kalam to something like:

1. the universe has a cause.
2. If the universe has a cause, it is a transcendent cause.
C: Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.

He then unpacks the cause as a personal, immaterial, spaceless, timeless being which must be hugely powerful. Strictly speaking, it's not necessarily God, but it certainly seems if we accept the implications of it, then atheism is in trouble.

As for criticisms of it, I would definitely look at the way Craig gets the features of the cause (p2 in the new argument) as having the most joy. The A-theory of time is another issue, but Craig has written extensively in defending it, so this would be very difficult with someone well-versed with the argument defending Kalam, and not really something which would be able to be articulated by someone without a background in this stuff. Lastly, the metaphysical intuitions may be suspect as well. While things like P1 in the traditional Kalam (whatever begins to exist has a cause) sounds not just extremely plausible, but absurd to deny, our frame of references in reasoning have to be scrutinised much more than usual, especially when taking into account things like an atemporal, disembodied mind, creation ex nihilo and known laws of physics breaking down at this point.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 7:36:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seriously izbo?

The fallacy of composition is an INFORMAL FALLACY. Whether an instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious depends on a case-by-case basis.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 7:43:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 2:40:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The point of a "cause" is that this "cause" must be God.

The idea is that existence does not randomly spring out of nonexistence. So, an omnipotent and eternal Being must exist... I.E. God.
Furthermore, the Big Bang has universal acceptance as the beginning of the universe... And, there is no reason that nothing could, except for God, have existed prior to the Big Bang... The Big Bang was the beginning of time, so there really was no "Before the Big Bang"...

Wow, I feel sorry for you. You've never heard of the Multiverse? Get out more. You must really be sheltered.

Furthermore, that the Universe is everything strengthens this argument... God created everything...

*Facepalm*
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 7:47:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 7:36:11 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Seriously izbo?

The fallacy of composition is an INFORMAL FALLACY. Whether an instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious depends on a case-by-case basis.

So what. It's still a fallacy. Obviously there will be exceptions and it may be that what applies to the part does apply to the whole, but it's fallacious to declare an assertion true based on the reasoning "what's true of the part is true of the whole."

It's still a fallacy and therefore the reasoning in the argument is fallacious.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 7:55:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 2:40:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The point of a "cause" is that this "cause" must be God.

Yeah, that's nice. That's just what you want to believe, but you have not given us any reason to believe that that this cause is God. Come on, THINK.

The idea is that existence does not randomly spring out of nonexistence. So, an omnipotent and eternal Being must exist... I.E. God.

Why's that? You simply stating it does not validate your claim. What reason is there to believe that the universe, if not from nothing, must have come from an omnipotent and eternal being? It does NOT need to be a Being and it does not need to be omnipotent. It simply needs to have the conditions or ability to produce a universe and ENOUGH power to produce a universe, not unlimited power.

Furthermore, the Big Bang has universal acceptance as the beginning of the universe...

Of THIS universe. Many scientists posit that THIS universe emerged from a larger universe inside of the all-encompassing Multiverse.

And, there is no reason that nothing could, except for God, have existed prior to the Big Bang...

Um, the Multiverse? You really have a narrow mind and rather ignorant to mainstream cosmology/physics.

The Big Bang was the beginning of time, so there really was no "Before the Big Bang"...

So you claim.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 8:05:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 7:47:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/22/2011 7:36:11 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Seriously izbo?

The fallacy of composition is an INFORMAL FALLACY. Whether an instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious depends on a case-by-case basis.

So what. It's still a fallacy. Obviously there will be exceptions and it may be that what applies to the part does apply to the whole, but it's fallacious to declare an assertion true based on the reasoning "what's true of the part is true of the whole."

It's still a fallacy and therefore the reasoning in the argument is fallacious.

No. It's not fallacious to infer that since each brick is red, that an entire wall is red.

That's the very point of an INFORMAL FALLACY. NOT every instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 8:08:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Plus the KCA doesn't even rely on part-whole reasoning. Nobody has argued that because everything in the universe began to exist, that therefore the universe began to exist.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 8:12:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 8:05:01 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 10/22/2011 7:47:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/22/2011 7:36:11 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Seriously izbo?

The fallacy of composition is an INFORMAL FALLACY. Whether an instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious depends on a case-by-case basis.

So what. It's still a fallacy. Obviously there will be exceptions and it may be that what applies to the part does apply to the whole, but it's fallacious to declare an assertion true based on the reasoning "what's true of the part is true of the whole."

It's still a fallacy and therefore the reasoning in the argument is fallacious.

No. It's not fallacious to infer that since each brick is red, that an entire wall is red.

That's the very point of an INFORMAL FALLACY. NOT every instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious.

Yeah, no sh!t. I just said that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 8:15:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You also said: "So what. It's still a fallacy. Obviously there will be exceptions and it may be that what applies to the part does apply to the whole, but it's fallacious to declare an assertion true based on the reasoning."

The bolded part is false. If that's not what you meant, then your statement was self-contradictory.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 9:00:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 8:05:01 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 10/22/2011 7:47:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/22/2011 7:36:11 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Seriously izbo?

The fallacy of composition is an INFORMAL FALLACY. Whether an instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious depends on a case-by-case basis.

So what. It's still a fallacy. Obviously there will be exceptions and it may be that what applies to the part does apply to the whole, but it's fallacious to declare an assertion true based on the reasoning "what's true of the part is true of the whole."

It's still a fallacy and therefore the reasoning in the argument is fallacious.

No. It's not fallacious to infer that since each brick is red, that an entire wall is red.

That's the very point of an INFORMAL FALLACY. NOT every instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious.

Bang on. I am glad to have you here on these forums.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 9:56:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 9:00:27 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/22/2011 8:05:01 PM, Contradiction wrote:
At 10/22/2011 7:47:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/22/2011 7:36:11 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Seriously izbo?

The fallacy of composition is an INFORMAL FALLACY. Whether an instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious depends on a case-by-case basis.

So what. It's still a fallacy. Obviously there will be exceptions and it may be that what applies to the part does apply to the whole, but it's fallacious to declare an assertion true based on the reasoning "what's true of the part is true of the whole."

It's still a fallacy and therefore the reasoning in the argument is fallacious.

No. It's not fallacious to infer that since each brick is red, that an entire wall is red.

That's the very point of an INFORMAL FALLACY. NOT every instance of part-whole reasoning is fallacious.

Bang on. I am glad to have you here on these forums.

Except the universe isn't a brick wall... So no, not bang on.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat