Total Posts:248|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is there any good rebuttal of the KCA?

Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 5:31:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kalam cosmological argument, developed in the middle east a couple hundred years ago to refute the then currently standing hypothesis that the Universe was eternal. After mathematicians showed it was impossible, the KCA's main function became an argument for God. I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal of it so far. For those who do not know it, the premises are:

1) Everything that has began to exist has a cause
2) The Universe has a cause
3) The cause is God

Steven Hawkings attempted to refute the first cause argument in his documentary Grand Design, however, he failed epicly as he raised another event that required a cause.

If you post an argument against the KCA here, be prepared for criticism, thats if I remember to log on in a reasonably short time frame.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 7:54:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:31:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Kalam cosmological argument, developed in the middle east a couple hundred years ago to refute the then currently standing hypothesis that the Universe was eternal. After mathematicians showed it was impossible, the KCA's main function became an argument for God. I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal of it so far. For those who do not know it, the premises are:

1) Everything that has began to exist has a cause
2) The Universe has a cause
3) The cause is God

This is an improper formulation. It should be:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) The Universe had a cause.


Steven Hawkings attempted to refute the first cause argument in his documentary Grand Design, however, he failed epicly as he raised another event that required a cause.

If you post an argument against the KCA here, be prepared for criticism, thats if I remember to log on in a reasonably short time frame.

There are plenty of objections.

#1 is based on induction. Everything we see that begins to exist has a cause, so we conclude that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Induction has limits to its rigor and can suffer from the Black Swan problem.

#1 is based on classical thinking. What we see "beginning to exist" really isn't "beginning to exist." Everything we see at a macroscopic layer is merely transformations and transformations, nothing is beginning or ending except for abstract concepts and collections. When you get down to the quantum level, we can start seeing things beginning and ending, but we don't know that they have a cause!

#2: We don't know that the Universe began to exist.

#2: Even if we know that the universe "began to exist" it is a categorically different kind of "beginning" then we are used to, so falls out of the scope of the induction covered in #1.

#3 concludes the existence of a cause, not a creator. Still have a long way to go to prove god from this.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 8:01:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First, welcome back! Second, can anyone give a quick break-down of Hawking's argument?
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 8:39:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:31:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Kalam cosmological argument, developed in the middle east a couple hundred years ago to refute the then currently standing hypothesis that the Universe was eternal. After mathematicians showed it was impossible, the KCA's main function became an argument for God. I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal of it so far. For those who do not know it, the premises are:

1) Everything that has began to exist has a cause
2) The Universe has a cause
3) The cause is God

Steven Hawkings attempted to refute the first cause argument in his documentary Grand Design, however, he failed epicly as he raised another event that required a cause.

If you post an argument against the KCA here, be prepared for criticism, thats if I remember to log on in a reasonably short time frame.

The KCA assumes a classical "A" theory of time, in which the past is thought to be fixed, the present real and the future potential. Physicists have known the A theory of time is false for over half a century.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:20:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 8:39:06 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/14/2013 5:31:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Kalam cosmological argument, developed in the middle east a couple hundred years ago to refute the then currently standing hypothesis that the Universe was eternal. After mathematicians showed it was impossible, the KCA's main function became an argument for God. I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal of it so far. For those who do not know it, the premises are:

1) Everything that has began to exist has a cause
2) The Universe has a cause
3) The cause is God

Steven Hawkings attempted to refute the first cause argument in his documentary Grand Design, however, he failed epicly as he raised another event that required a cause.

If you post an argument against the KCA here, be prepared for criticism, thats if I remember to log on in a reasonably short time frame.


The KCA assumes a classical "A" theory of time, in which the past is thought to be fixed, the present real and the future potential. Physicists have known the A theory of time is false for over half a century.

I seriously just lol'd.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:39:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I isn't based on induction, that's an a priori metaphysical principle that from nothing, nothing comes.

Once one understands causality, it seems impossible that something would come from nothing, why? Because nothing is not anything, and so it wouldn't have any potentialities.

Minimally we can say it's more probable than not based on induction. Which is a far more powerful position since it's claim is more modest.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:46:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Another argument I've yet to debate. By far the weakest part of this argument seems to be reasoning God from a caused universe. I'm also not convinced simultaneous causation or creation ex nihilo are able to be justified, but I'd need to be in "debating mode" to get my ducks in a row and formulate a case against it.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:49:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:20:31 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
The KCA assumes a classical "A" theory of time, in which the past is thought to be fixed, the present real and the future potential. Physicists have known the A theory of time is false for over half a century.

I seriously just lol'd.

Fine, I really don't know anything about the physics/philosophy of time and I'm just parroting Luke Maulhauser from when he ran commonsenseathism. I'm sorry.
CIIReligion
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:58:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) Everything that has began to exist has a cause
2) The Universe has a cause
3) The cause is God

I am a layman and I can see the problem with this very easily. Take 3 and change the noun, now it will fit for anything you wish. To assert that God was the cause without having any actual proof/evidence is the biggest fallacy of all.
Get a CLUE & Get an EDUCATION
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 11:59:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:49:09 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/14/2013 11:20:31 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
The KCA assumes a classical "A" theory of time, in which the past is thought to be fixed, the present real and the future potential. Physicists have known the A theory of time is false for over half a century.

I seriously just lol'd.

Fine, I really don't know anything about the physics/philosophy of time and I'm just parroting Luke Maulhauser from when he ran commonsenseathism. I'm sorry.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but he was cool for a good while. I'm not exactly sure what to make of him now. Perhaps it's just 'cause I don't get him now since he's part of the less wrong crowd.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 12:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:39:40 AM, Apeiron wrote:
I isn't based on induction, that's an a priori metaphysical principle that from nothing, nothing comes.

Once one understands causality, it seems impossible that something would come from nothing, why? Because nothing is not anything, and so it wouldn't have any potentialities.

A priori, there's nothing to say causation from nothing is impossible. Indeed, given that the theistic alternative is still creation from nothing, it's mind-boggling either way. Causality without time (or simultaneous to it) though? Seems pretty challenging to me.

Minimally we can say it's more probable than not based on induction. Which is a far more powerful position since it's claim is more modest.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 12:19:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pretty much what drafter said. I haven't seen the KCA as really really challenging, tbh. I never understood the Moral Argument, I should probably look into it more.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 12:21:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:30:44 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com...

Wes Morriston probably has the best rebuttals in print

http://spot.colorado.edu...

Lol, your posts are often so contradictory to the common theist here, I don't doubt some would mistake you for an atheist :P
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 12:41:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 12:21:02 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 1/14/2013 11:30:44 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com...

Wes Morriston probably has the best rebuttals in print

http://spot.colorado.edu...

Lol, your posts are often so contradictory to the common theist here, I don't doubt some would mistake you for an atheist :P

I do it because I find a lot of atheists (not all, of course) here have terrible arguments that miss the point half the time. Someone's gotta keep it lively. :p I'm not concerned with towing party lines in any case. :p
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 12:57:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 12:09:12 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 1/14/2013 11:39:40 AM, Apeiron wrote:
I isn't based on induction, that's an a priori metaphysical principle that from nothing, nothing comes.

Once one understands causality, it seems impossible that something would come from nothing, why? Because nothing is not anything, and so it wouldn't have any potentialities.

A priori, there's nothing to say causation from nothing is impossible. Indeed, given that the theistic alternative is still creation from nothing, it's mind-boggling either way. Causality without time (or simultaneous to it) though? Seems pretty challenging to me.

The theist doesn't beleive there was nothing then something, there was God to cause it.

Also, I just said that since nothing has no potentialities, then therefore it literally is causally impotent. For if it did have causal potentialities, then it would obviously be something.

The atheist has to convince us somehow that there was nothing... then it exploded.


Minimally we can say it's more probable than not based on induction. Which is a far more powerful position since it's claim is more modest.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:20:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:31:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
1) Everything that has began to exist has a cause
2) The Universe has a cause
3) The cause is God

That conclusion should say, "Therefore, the universe has a cause."

My biggest problem I have with the KCA is that if the universe had a cause, and if the universe is the beginning of time, then whatever caused the universe must've been timeless since it is wholly other than the universe. But the problem is that there's no way to account for its timeless state since the state of affairs could not have obtained before the universe (since there was no before), nor since the universe (since time has existed since then). The only solution is to put the timeless state right at the beginning, which is just hard for me to wrap my head around.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:21:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Is this a Joke?
"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
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:22:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 12:57:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/14/2013 12:09:12 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 1/14/2013 11:39:40 AM, Apeiron wrote:
I isn't based on induction, that's an a priori metaphysical principle that from nothing, nothing comes.

Once one understands causality, it seems impossible that something would come from nothing, why? Because nothing is not anything, and so it wouldn't have any potentialities.

A priori, there's nothing to say causation from nothing is impossible. Indeed, given that the theistic alternative is still creation from nothing, it's mind-boggling either way. Causality without time (or simultaneous to it) though? Seems pretty challenging to me.

The theist doesn't beleive there was nothing then something, there was God to cause it.

What is God affecting though? There was nothing to affect.

Also, I just said that since nothing has no potentialities, then therefore it literally is causally impotent. For if it did have causal potentialities, then it would obviously be something.

Again, a universe from absolutely nothing sounds absurd. A universe created out of nothing seems similarly absurd. Besides, whatever the answer, I'm not sure intuition works here. Not only is known physics often radically counter-intuitive at times, but when we go back to this point, all our laws seem to break down.

The atheist has to convince us somehow that there was nothing... then it exploded.

Or they could say they have no idea how the universe came to be. I'm nowhere near qualified enough to make a judgement about the science, but from what I've read, to say that origin cosmology is very much in its infancy is an understatement.

Besides, even granting a caused universe, I'm not sure the atheist is on the ropes, even then. As I said, the weakest part of the argument seems to be inferring God.


Minimally we can say it's more probable than not based on induction. Which is a far more powerful position since it's claim is more modest.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:27:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Anybody, care to put there money where their mouth is! or is this all talk?
"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
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:28:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 7:54:56 AM, drafterman wrote:
#1 is based on induction.

That's not a problem for the KCA proper. If anything, that's just a problem for one of the arguments for the KCA. But induction is not the only argument. As Apeiron said, it is based on an a priori intuition that it's impossible for anything to begin to be without a cause or reason.

#1 is based on classical thinking. What we see "beginning to exist" really isn't "beginning to exist."

Actually, the beginning of the universe is unlike the beginning of anything else since everything else has a material cause, but the universe lacks any material cause.

#2: We don't know that the Universe began to exist.

Bill Craig gives four arguments that the universe have a beginning. There are at least three more than I know of.

#2: Even if we know that the universe "began to exist" it is a categorically different kind of "beginning" then we are used to, so falls out of the scope of the induction covered in #1.

That's true. That's why it's an a priori argument. As Apeiron said, if there is literally nothing before the beginning of the universe, then there's not even any potential for the universe to begin. Personally, I think a better first premise would be something like, "It's impossible for anything to spontaneously begin to exist uncaused out of nothing." That would avoid some other objections that sometimes come up, too.

#3 concludes the existence of a cause, not a creator. Still have a long way to go to prove god from this.

That's true. But there are additional arguments to show that the cause is some sort of god.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:30:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 1:28:58 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/14/2013 7:54:56 AM, drafterman wrote:
#1 is based on induction.

That's not a problem for the KCA proper. If anything, that's just a problem for one of the arguments for the KCA.

Woops! I meant to say, "If anything, that's just a problem for one of the arguments for the first premise in the KCA.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:34:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 1:30:34 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/14/2013 1:28:58 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/14/2013 7:54:56 AM, drafterman wrote:
#1 is based on induction.

That's not a problem for the KCA proper. If anything, that's just a problem for one of the arguments for the KCA.

Woops! I meant to say, "If anything, that's just a problem for one of the arguments for the first premise in the KCA.

The Fool: Therefore its dead.
"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
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:35:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 1:28:58 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/14/2013 7:54:56 AM, drafterman wrote:
#1 is based on induction.

That's not a problem for the KCA proper. If anything, that's just a problem for one of the arguments for the KCA. But induction is not the only argument. As Apeiron said, it is based on an a priori intuition that it's impossible for anything to begin to be without a cause or reason.

Which is worse! At least induction is based on something. Here it seems like you're simply demanding we take the premise as true, axiomatically.


#1 is based on classical thinking. What we see "beginning to exist" really isn't "beginning to exist."

Actually, the beginning of the universe is unlike the beginning of anything else since everything else has a material cause, but the universe lacks any material cause.

I'm glad you said that, as I point that out later.


#2: We don't know that the Universe began to exist.

Bill Craig gives four arguments that the universe have a beginning. There are at least three more than I know of.

And there are people who assert the universe is elephants all the way down, too.


#2: Even if we know that the universe "began to exist" it is a categorically different kind of "beginning" then we are used to, so falls out of the scope of the induction covered in #1.

That's true. That's why it's an a priori argument. As Apeiron said, if there is literally nothing before the beginning of the universe, then there's not even any potential for the universe to begin. Personally, I think a better first premise would be something like, "It's impossible for anything to spontaneously begin to exist uncaused out of nothing." That would avoid some other objections that sometimes come up, too.

But, alas, the first premise isn't that.


#3 concludes the existence of a cause, not a creator. Still have a long way to go to prove god from this.

That's true. But there are additional arguments to show that the cause is some sort of god.

Which aren't the KCA.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 1:39:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 11:59:56 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/14/2013 11:49:09 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/14/2013 11:20:31 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
The KCA assumes a classical "A" theory of time, in which the past is thought to be fixed, the present real and the future potential. Physicists have known the A theory of time is false for over half a century.

I seriously just lol'd.

Fine, I really don't know anything about the physics/philosophy of time and I'm just parroting Luke Maulhauser from when he ran commonsenseathism. I'm sorry.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but he was cool for a good while. I'm not exactly sure what to make of him now. Perhaps it's just 'cause I don't get him now since he's part of the less wrong crowd.

Nah, just being brutally honest with myself. I think I should stop commenting on religious topics unless I get interested in, and start reading phil of religion again. Yeah Luke's part of the 'rationalist' crowd now. He's taken to warning the world that super intelligent machines will take over the world soon. Oh, and he hates philosophy now lol: http://lesswrong.com...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 2:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 1:35:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/14/2013 1:28:58 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/14/2013 7:54:56 AM, drafterman wrote:
#1 is based on induction.

That's not a problem for the KCA proper. If anything, that's just a problem for one of the arguments for the KCA. But induction is not the only argument. As Apeiron said, it is based on an a priori intuition that it's impossible for anything to begin to be without a cause or reason.

Which is worse! At least induction is based on something. Here it seems like you're simply demanding we take the premise as true, axiomatically.


#1 is based on classical thinking. What we see "beginning to exist" really isn't "beginning to exist."

Actually, the beginning of the universe is unlike the beginning of anything else since everything else has a material cause, but the universe lacks any material cause.

I'm glad you said that, as I point that out later.


#2: We don't know that the Universe began to exist.

Bill Craig gives four arguments that the universe have a beginning. There are at least three more than I know of.

The Fool: Any rationalist knows that a logical argument doesn't become more true the more you make. It suggest to Critical philosophers that he isn't confident about them. You would have to be using the TERM "Logic" to mean something else.

The more arguments there, is.
And there are people who assert the universe is elephants all the way down, too.

The Fool: Its Turtles.
<(8J)
http://youtu.be...


#2: Even if we know that the universe "began to exist" it is a categorically different kind of "beginning" then we are used to, so falls out of the scope of the induction covered in #1.

The Fool: If you are using universe to refer to everything then everything would be in its category. It would be part of all that come into existence. What do YOU mean by the term universe?

That's true. That's why it's an a priori argument. As Apeiron said, if there is literally nothing before the beginning of the universe, then there's not even any potential for the universe to begin. Personally, I think a better first premise would be something like, "It's impossible for anything to spontaneously begin to exist uncaused out of nothing."

That would avoid some other objections that sometimes come up, too.

But, alas, the first premise isn't that.


#3 concludes the existence of a cause, not a creator. Still have a long way to go to prove god from this.

That's true. But there are additional arguments to show that the cause is some sort of god.

Which aren't the KCA.
"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
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 2:04:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: Philosophy of Religion IS RELIGION. How could you guys be so Niave?
"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
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 2:09:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 5:31:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Kalam cosmological argument, developed in the middle east a couple hundred years ago to refute the then currently standing hypothesis that the Universe was eternal. After mathematicians showed it was impossible, the KCA's main function became an argument for God. I haven't seen any convincing rebuttal of it so far. For those who do not know it, the premises are:

1) Everything that has began to exist has a cause
2) The Universe has a cause
3) The cause is God

That argument is obviously invalid. As dafterman said before me, it most commonly reads:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.

I still find it unconvincing when written this way, but at least the conclusion follows the premises.

So where is the warrant for premise one? I've never heard WLC offer any meaningful support to it. Usually, he'd go on a tangent about balls and big balls and bigger balls and universe-sized balls... He's got a thing about big balls, I dunno...

The point is, while we have plenty of evidence to support the claim that all thing which begin to exist ex materia have causes, we have no such evidence to support the claim that all things whicih begin to exist ex nihilo have causes.

In this case, the only example the proponent of the KLA can give of any thing beginning to exist ex nihilo is the universe itself, so we can reformulate the argument to be a bit more honest:

1) Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo, and by that I mean only the universe, has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 2:10:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 2:04:21 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Philosophy of Religion IS RELIGION. How could you guys be so Niave?

It's spelled "naive".
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2013 2:20:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/14/2013 1:35:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/14/2013 1:28:58 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/14/2013 7:54:56 AM, drafterman wrote:
#1 is based on induction.

That's not a problem for the KCA proper. If anything, that's just a problem for one of the arguments for the KCA. But induction is not the only argument. As Apeiron said, it is based on an a priori intuition that it's impossible for anything to begin to be without a cause or reason.

Which is worse! At least induction is based on something. Here it seems like you're simply demanding we take the premise as true, axiomatically.

The Fool: Induction is based of reasoning. You do not experience INDUCTION with your five senses. The Grounding IS always rational. You can't even know what Possibility or Probability mean, if you affirm a purely physical-list doctrine.
Just take look at all are words. There is not one word in this entire text that refers to any physical entity @ all.

#1 is based on classical thinking. What we see "beginning to exist" really isn't "beginning to exist."

Actually, the beginning of the universe is unlike the beginning of anything else since everything else has a material cause, but the universe lacks any material cause.

I'm glad you said that, as I point that out later.


#2: We don't know that the Universe began to exist.

Bill Craig gives four arguments that the universe have a beginning. There are at least three more than I know of.

And there are people who assert the universe is elephants all the way down, too.

The Fool: Sorry an Elephant is partly material.

#2: Even if we know that the universe "began to exist" it is a categorically different kind of "beginning" then we are used to, so falls out of the scope of the induction covered in #1.

That's true. That's why it's an a priori argument. As Apeiron said, if there is literally nothing before the beginning of the universe, then there's not even any potential for the universe to begin. Personally, I think a better first premise would be something like, "It's impossible for anything to spontaneously begin to exist uncaused out of nothing." That would avoid some other objections that sometimes come up, too.

But, alas, the first premise isn't that.


#3 concludes the existence of a cause, not a creator. Still have a long way to go to prove god from this.

That's true. But there are additional arguments to show that the cause is some sort of god.

Which aren't the KCA.
"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