Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Kalam Cosmologica & Time & Causation

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:41:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument as argued by William Craig.

This isn't an objection (well not yet) but I want to see where something is going. William Craig in response to the objection that the universe can't have cause on the grounds that causes come before (time wise) their effects and there is no before (time wise) in regards to the universe therefore it can't have a cause. His response is something along the lines that a cause can exist causally before the effect ? but it doesn't necessarily have to exist (temporally/time wise) before the effect.

It should be clear here that Craig is de-linking cause and effect from before and after (time) so is therefore de-linking cause and effect from time. But if your going to do this how far does it go ? if a cause doesn't have to exist "temporally" before its effect, why not have a cause that exists after (time wise) its effect.

Now I assume some one will respond, but, but, but, a cause can't exist after the effect, then you have missed the point, once you de link time from cause and effect, then its no longer applicable.

What ramifications does this have for KCA or causality in general if we adopt this de linkage of time from cause and effect ? Should we even do it ? Is Craig just full of sh*t ? (That outta bring out a response). Bring it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:51:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:41:06 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument as argued by William Craig.

This isn't an objection (well not yet) but I want to see where something is going. William Craig in response to the objection that the universe can't have cause on the grounds that causes come before (time wise) their effects and there is no before (time wise) in regards to the universe therefore it can't have a cause. His response is something along the lines that a cause can exist causally before the effect ? but it doesn't necessarily have to exist (temporally/time wise) before the effect.

It should be clear here that Craig is de-linking cause and effect from before and after (time) so is therefore de-linking cause and effect from time. But if your going to do this how far does it go ? if a cause doesn't have to exist "temporally" before its effect, why not have a cause that exists after (time wise) its effect.

Now I assume some one will respond, but, but, but, a cause can't exist after the effect, then you have missed the point, once you de link time from cause and effect, then its no longer applicable.

What ramifications does this have for KCA or causality in general if we adopt this de linkage of time from cause and effect ? Should we even do it ? Is Craig just full of sh*t ? (That outta bring out a response). Bring it.

I don't think I would agree with Craig. I think I see the dilema though. 1) I do not see how a cause can not-exist and still be seperate from an effect. 2) A cause I guess is temporal (?) and necesitates time...? What is wrong with an eternal being in eternity initiating time with cause and effect? I have understood time to be only in a sense a property of matter or cause and effect. Thena again thinking of eternity past and aseity is not something I believe I have the ability to fully comprehend.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:02:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:51:12 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:41:06 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument as argued by William Craig.

This isn't an objection (well not yet) but I want to see where something is going. William Craig in response to the objection that the universe can't have cause on the grounds that causes come before (time wise) their effects and there is no before (time wise) in regards to the universe therefore it can't have a cause. His response is something along the lines that a cause can exist causally before the effect ? but it doesn't necessarily have to exist (temporally/time wise) before the effect.

It should be clear here that Craig is de-linking cause and effect from before and after (time) so is therefore de-linking cause and effect from time. But if your going to do this how far does it go ? if a cause doesn't have to exist "temporally" before its effect, why not have a cause that exists after (time wise) its effect.

Now I assume some one will respond, but, but, but, a cause can't exist after the effect, then you have missed the point, once you de link time from cause and effect, then its no longer applicable.

What ramifications does this have for KCA or causality in general if we adopt this de linkage of time from cause and effect ? Should we even do it ? Is Craig just full of sh*t ? (That outta bring out a response). Bring it.

I don't think I would agree with Craig. I think I see the dilema though. 1) I do not see how a cause can not-exist and still be seperate from an effect. 2) A cause I guess is temporal (?) and necesitates time...? What is wrong with an eternal being in eternity initiating time with cause and effect? I have understood time to be only in a sense a property of matter or cause and effect. Thena again thinking of eternity past and aseity is not something I believe I have the ability to fully comprehend.

Eternal is a bit to vague, means different things. In Craigs view the more correct term is timeless being. Why timeless ? cause if time began to exist, you can't have time before time......thus cause must be timeless.

But in order to make this timeless cause work he has to delink some what time from a cause and effect, hence my original post.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:07:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:41:06 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument as argued by William Craig.

This isn't an objection (well not yet) but I want to see where something is going. William Craig in response to the objection that the universe can't have cause on the grounds that causes come before (time wise) their effects and there is no before (time wise) in regards to the universe therefore it can't have a cause. His response is something along the lines that a cause can exist causally before the effect ? but it doesn't necessarily have to exist (temporally/time wise) before the effect.

It should be clear here that Craig is de-linking cause and effect from before and after (time) so is therefore de-linking cause and effect from time. But if your going to do this how far does it go ? if a cause doesn't have to exist "temporally" before its effect, why not have a cause that exists after (time wise) its effect.

Now I assume some one will respond, but, but, but, a cause can't exist after the effect, then you have missed the point, once you de link time from cause and effect, then its no longer applicable.

What ramifications does this have for KCA or causality in general if we adopt this de linkage of time from cause and effect ? Should we even do it ? Is Craig just full of sh*t ? (That outta bring out a response). Bring it.

It is impossible to give an example of simultaneous causation that doesn't involve the need for a temporally prior causal dependency. For example, someone may say that a bowling ball resting on a cushion is an example of simultaneous causation, but the bowling ball still had to be placed there temporally prior. One may say a log submerged in water is simultaneous causation, but the log still had to have arrived at that spot, which would have to taken time, and occurred temporally prior to this simultaneous causation.

Also if time is relative, who knows if objective simultaneous causation is even possible.

Basically, the simultaneous causation or ("causally prior") concept isn't convincing. All evidence and experience tells us that time is necessary condition for causation, and that simultaneous causation requires temporally prior causal dependencies. Causation still could be "possible" without time (there is nothing logically contradictory about it), however it could be possible that there is an ice monster hiding out on the icy moon of Europa as well. Just like how if there was no TV, we shouldn't expect the idea of "Family guy" to exist, without time and temporally prior causal dependencies, we shouldn't expect causation to exist (despite the the fact that it is merely epistemically possible).

Also, this argument shoots the theist in the foot. The only reason the idea that the universe causing itself is absurd, is because the universe would have to exist before itself, to create itself. However, if simultaneous causation is possible, then the universe would cause itself to exist coherently, because it wouldn't have to exist before itself to create itself. It could create itself and this would be perfectly logical, because it would exist at the same time of the creation and wouldn't have to exist before itself. It could be it's own causal dependency if temporally prior causal dependencies are not required.

So, either way, this argument is not good for the theist.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:30:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:02:13 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:51:12 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:41:06 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument as argued by William Craig.

This isn't an objection (well not yet) but I want to see where something is going. William Craig in response to the objection that the universe can't have cause on the grounds that causes come before (time wise) their effects and there is no before (time wise) in regards to the universe therefore it can't have a cause. His response is something along the lines that a cause can exist causally before the effect ? but it doesn't necessarily have to exist (temporally/time wise) before the effect.

It should be clear here that Craig is de-linking cause and effect from before and after (time) so is therefore de-linking cause and effect from time. But if your going to do this how far does it go ? if a cause doesn't have to exist "temporally" before its effect, why not have a cause that exists after (time wise) its effect.

Now I assume some one will respond, but, but, but, a cause can't exist after the effect, then you have missed the point, once you de link time from cause and effect, then its no longer applicable.

What ramifications does this have for KCA or causality in general if we adopt this de linkage of time from cause and effect ? Should we even do it ? Is Craig just full of sh*t ? (That outta bring out a response). Bring it.

I don't think I would agree with Craig. I think I see the dilema though. 1) I do not see how a cause can not-exist and still be seperate from an effect. 2) A cause I guess is temporal (?) and necesitates time...? What is wrong with an eternal being in eternity initiating time with cause and effect? I have understood time to be only in a sense a property of matter or cause and effect. Thena again thinking of eternity past and aseity is not something I believe I have the ability to fully comprehend.

Eternal is a bit to vague, means different things. In Craigs view the more correct term is timeless being. Why timeless ? cause if time began to exist, you can't have time before time......thus cause must be timeless.

Without begining or end is the manner I use the term. Is it plausible to seperate time from matter? If nothing happens there is not reference of time. The first point of reference would necessarialy determine an existance prior to its reference. The existance prior to the first reference of time necessarially must be without begining. I think I can concieve an eternal being determining the begining and ending of the reference of time, as time existance is dependant on the eternal being. In God a reference of time was determined when He caused it. Lolz, now I see how the first cause necessarially is timeless as well. I often here: In eternity past God decreed.... The effect must be seperated temporaly from the cause, its effectually an eternal cause.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

But in order to make this timeless cause work he has to delink some what time from a cause and effect, hence my original post.

Yes, eternal decrees..... I suppose I can see the cause being an eternal decree with the effect initiating time.... blah blah blah lolz.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:45:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 12:07:53 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/18/2012 11:41:06 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am referring to the Kalam Cosmological Argument as argued by William Craig.

This isn't an objection (well not yet) but I want to see where something is going. William Craig in response to the objection that the universe can't have cause on the grounds that causes come before (time wise) their effects and there is no before (time wise) in regards to the universe therefore it can't have a cause. His response is something along the lines that a cause can exist causally before the effect ? but it doesn't necessarily have to exist (temporally/time wise) before the effect.

It should be clear here that Craig is de-linking cause and effect from before and after (time) so is therefore de-linking cause and effect from time. But if your going to do this how far does it go ? if a cause doesn't have to exist "temporally" before its effect, why not have a cause that exists after (time wise) its effect.

Now I assume some one will respond, but, but, but, a cause can't exist after the effect, then you have missed the point, once you de link time from cause and effect, then its no longer applicable.

What ramifications does this have for KCA or causality in general if we adopt this de linkage of time from cause and effect ? Should we even do it ? Is Craig just full of sh*t ? (That outta bring out a response). Bring it.

It is impossible to give an example of simultaneous causation that doesn't involve the need for a temporally prior causal dependency. For example, someone may say that a bowling ball resting on a cushion is an example of simultaneous causation, but the bowling ball still had to be placed there temporally prior. One may say a log submerged in water is simultaneous causation, but the log still had to have arrived at that spot, which would have to taken time, and occurred temporally prior to this simultaneous causation.

Also if time is relative, who knows if objective simultaneous causation is even possible.

Basically, the simultaneous causation or ("causally prior") concept isn't convincing. All evidence and experience tells us that time is necessary condition for causation, and that simultaneous causation requires temporally prior causal dependencies. Causation still could be "possible" without time (there is nothing logically contradictory about it), however it could be possible that there is an ice monster hiding out on the icy moon of Europa as well. Just like how if there was no TV, we shouldn't expect the idea of "Family guy" to exist, without time and temporally prior causal dependencies, we shouldn't expect causation to exist (despite the the fact that it is merely epistemically possible).

Also, this argument shoots the theist in the foot. The only reason the idea that the universe causing itself is absurd, is because the universe would have to exist before itself, to create itself. However, if simultaneous causation is possible, then the universe would cause itself to exist coherently, because it wouldn't have to exist before itself to create itself. It could create itself and this would be perfectly logical, because it would exist at the same time of the creation and wouldn't have to exist before itself. It could be it's own causal dependency if temporally prior causal dependencies are not required.

So, either way, this argument is not good for the theist.

The Fool: If there is no time there is not way to demarcate the cause from the effect. Its nonsense.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 3:53:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Essentially, Craig is rewriting how time works, which is something that is well known in the field. His view of A-B time hybrid theory is generally dismissed by all but his religiously dogmatic followers, because of blatant contradictions and evident inconsistencies with McTaggart's paradox. Whether he's ahead of everyone or not is still possible, just very, very unlikely.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 11:23:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:41:06 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What ramifications does this have for KCA or causality in general if we adopt this de linkage of time from cause and effect ?

It means we no longer have to look to a first cause in the past. We could look to the future, perhaps to some scientific experiment that goes awry.

Once he says causes needn't precede effects, he has destroyed his own case.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 2:20:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 12:00:42 PM, TheJackel wrote:
before and after (time)

His biggest problem is trying to argue a "before" time lol .

He claims the simultaneous causation would happen causally prior, and not temporally prior...Whatever that means lol
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 2:35:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 2:20:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/20/2012 12:00:42 PM, TheJackel wrote:
before and after (time)

His biggest problem is trying to argue a "before" time lol .

He claims the simultaneous causation would happen causally prior, and not temporally prior...Whatever that means lol

It essentially means that there is no cause anymore, because the cause cannot be distinguished from the event, really. If the cause was after, it'd be at least consistent to an extent, but the simultaneous nature actually is logically inconsistent.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 3:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 2:35:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/20/2012 2:20:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/20/2012 12:00:42 PM, TheJackel wrote:
before and after (time)

His biggest problem is trying to argue a "before" time lol .

He claims the simultaneous causation would happen causally prior, and not temporally prior...Whatever that means lol

It essentially means that there is no cause anymore, because the cause cannot be distinguished from the event, really. If the cause was after, it'd be at least consistent to an extent, but the simultaneous nature actually is logically inconsistent.

Dr. Craig gives examples of simultaneous causation where you can distinguish the cause and the effect.