Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kalam argument

Hvaniratha
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
" The existence of the creator, Ohrmazd, is manifested by the formation of the creation. "
-- Denkard, book 3

Hello all, I want to know your opinion of the Kalam argument presented by William Craig. I have seen many of Craig's debates, and this argument is at least logically valid. It goes like this, basically:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

I believe in 1, because as it is said in the Denkard, book 4: " [...] every one comes into being from Him who has being. " I also believe in 2 because it is said in the Denkard, book 3: " Be it known that in finite time (i.e. this world) man rises in the scale of existence and becomes glorious through wisdom. " So I have revealed reason to accept both 1 and 2. However, I think that science has shown both 1 and 2 to be true as well.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:17:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
" The existence of the creator, Ohrmazd, is manifested by the formation of the creation. "
-- Denkard, book 3

Hello all, I want to know your opinion of the Kalam argument presented by William Craig. I have seen many of Craig's debates, and this argument is at least logically valid. It goes like this, basically:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

I believe in 1, because as it is said in the Denkard, book 4: " [...] every one comes into being from Him who has being. " I also believe in 2 because it is said in the Denkard, book 3: " Be it known that in finite time (i.e. this world) man rises in the scale of existence and becomes glorious through wisdom. " So I have revealed reason to accept both 1 and 2. However, I think that science has shown both 1 and 2 to be true as well.

It's a sound argument, but you'll find differing opinions as to the argument. Most of the arguments against it are really bad rebuttals (e.g. "who caused God?", "nothing began to exist," etc.), but I'm sure there are some good responses out there. I think this simple argument is a very strong one for the existence of God.

I've never heard of the Denkard, but I think that science definitely attests to the soundness of the KCA.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

People give and regive their opinions on this argument every five seconds. Here's mine, again:

The first premise has no strong warrant to support it. Mostly, proponents the argument try to get you to accept it by listing off several things which we know have both properties (1) began to exist, and (2) had a cause. Things like cars, houses, people, etc.

However, all of these things began to exist ex materia, not ex nihilo like the universe and it would be fallacious to combine both of these categories like there is no significant difference between them. Therefore, the argument must be rewritten one of two ways:

EX MATERIA
1) Everything that begins to exist ex materia has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist ex materia.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first premise is most likely true, but the second is not. And even it were, then the universe would be merely a new rearrangement of preexisting materials, not a product of some deity's pixie dust.

EX NIHILO
1) Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist ex nihilo.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Now the second premise is most likely true, but the first has absolutely no warrant. It's not enough to say "Things don't pop into existence ex nihilo nowadays; therefore, they never did" because that confuses the issue.

Firstly, no one claims the universe suddenly popped into existence from a state of absolute nothingness seconds prior. They merely claim the universe has existed for all time, and that there was no "before" the universe or nothingness which preceded it.

And secondly, even if they did (which, trust me, they don't), then that would mean something popped into existence from a prior state of nothingness, but since then, there has never been a similar state of nothingness, including right now. So of course things don't pop into existence from nothingness. Nothingness doesn't exist anymore.

I believe in 1, because as it is said in the Denkard, book 4: " [...] every one comes into being from Him who has being. " I also believe in 2 because it is said in the Denkard, book 3: " Be it known that in finite time (i.e. this world) man rises in the scale of existence and becomes glorious through wisdom. " So I have revealed reason to accept both 1 and 2.

Those are very poor reasons considering they're unsupported without already believing in God.
Hvaniratha
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:22:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Those are very poor reasons considering they're unsupported without already believing in God.

I do not believe in God because of the Kalam argument. I think that the Kalam argument confirms it, but I do not expect anti - theists to be convinced by Zoroastrian books. Rather, I would give a non - religious defense of 1 and 2.
Hvaniratha
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:26:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:17:19 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
" The existence of the creator, Ohrmazd, is manifested by the formation of the creation. "
-- Denkard, book 3

Hello all, I want to know your opinion of the Kalam argument presented by William Craig. I have seen many of Craig's debates, and this argument is at least logically valid. It goes like this, basically:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

I believe in 1, because as it is said in the Denkard, book 4: " [...] every one comes into being from Him who has being. " I also believe in 2 because it is said in the Denkard, book 3: " Be it known that in finite time (i.e. this world) man rises in the scale of existence and becomes glorious through wisdom. " So I have revealed reason to accept both 1 and 2. However, I think that science has shown both 1 and 2 to be true as well.

It's a sound argument, but you'll find differing opinions as to the argument. Most of the arguments against it are really bad rebuttals (e.g. "who caused God?", "nothing began to exist," etc.), but I'm sure there are some good responses out there. I think this simple argument is a very strong one for the existence of God.

I've never heard of the Denkard, but I think that science definitely attests to the soundness of the KCA.

Indeed, Keytar Hero. I think the " who caused God? " argument misses the clause " begin to exist " in 1, because even though God needs an explanation (necessity) he doesn't need an efficient cause like what 1 is asking for. And I think " nothing begins to exist " rebuttal misses the point, too, because we still see that everything needs a cause to bring it into being, even if composed of different matter.

I think a serious rebuttal to it is that it assumes the " A-theory of time " which if I understand it correctly is the theory that the present is moving and that things actually change, where B-theory is that nothing changes, and it is just a static block of different events. I don't read much on this subejct so I don't even know if I'm right here.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:26:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:22:02 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Those are very poor reasons considering they're unsupported without already believing in God.

I do not believe in God because of the Kalam argument.

Clearly.

I think that the Kalam argument confirms it, but I do not expect anti - theists to be convinced by Zoroastrian books.

Then why did you provide such warrants if you knew they were poor?

Rather, I would give a non - religious defense of 1 and 2.

Go ahead.
Hvaniratha
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:33:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:26:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:22:02 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Those are very poor reasons considering they're unsupported without already believing in God.

I do not believe in God because of the Kalam argument.

Clearly.

I think that the Kalam argument confirms it, but I do not expect anti - theists to be convinced by Zoroastrian books.

Then why did you provide such warrants if you knew they were poor?

Rather, I would give a non - religious defense of 1 and 2.

Go ahead.

If "clearly" is meant to be sarcastic, I can tell you that not many theists believe in God because of " arguments " or philosophy. I know my fellow Zoroastrians and probably Christians, etc are convinced by religious experience.

I said the passages because it was just to show that the premises of the argument were coherent with my religion, so there is no contradiction. So I can still teach the argument to people because it is agrees with Zoroastrianism.

You're probably more educated on this than I am, and I will need time to think about what you said on the post before this one.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:48:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:33:23 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:26:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:22:02 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Those are very poor reasons considering they're unsupported without already believing in God.

I do not believe in God because of the Kalam argument.

Clearly.

I think that the Kalam argument confirms it, but I do not expect anti - theists to be convinced by Zoroastrian books.

Then why did you provide such warrants if you knew they were poor?

Rather, I would give a non - religious defense of 1 and 2.

Go ahead.


If "clearly" is meant to be sarcastic, I can tell you that not many theists believe in God because of " arguments " or philosophy. I know my fellow Zoroastrians and probably Christians, etc are convinced by religious experience.

Yes, I'm aware many theists are not theists due to logical arguments. My "clearly" was, in fact, not sarcasm.

You're probably more educated on this than I am, and I will need time to think about what you said on the post before this one.

Okie doke.
Hvaniratha
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:51:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:48:23 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:33:23 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:26:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:22:02 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Those are very poor reasons considering they're unsupported without already believing in God.

I do not believe in God because of the Kalam argument.

Clearly.

I think that the Kalam argument confirms it, but I do not expect anti - theists to be convinced by Zoroastrian books.

Then why did you provide such warrants if you knew they were poor?

Rather, I would give a non - religious defense of 1 and 2.

Go ahead.


If "clearly" is meant to be sarcastic, I can tell you that not many theists believe in God because of " arguments " or philosophy. I know my fellow Zoroastrians and probably Christians, etc are convinced by religious experience.

Yes, I'm aware many theists are not theists due to logical arguments. My "clearly" was, in fact, not sarcasm.

You're probably more educated on this than I am, and I will need time to think about what you said on the post before this one.

Okie doke.

That is good to know, Dakota. Thank you for enlightening the subject with those objections, I have not come across them before in my reading on cosmogony.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 3:57:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:51:08 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:48:23 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:33:23 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:26:58 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:22:02 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Those are very poor reasons considering they're unsupported without already believing in God.

I do not believe in God because of the Kalam argument.

Clearly.

I think that the Kalam argument confirms it, but I do not expect anti - theists to be convinced by Zoroastrian books.

Then why did you provide such warrants if you knew they were poor?

Rather, I would give a non - religious defense of 1 and 2.

Go ahead.


If "clearly" is meant to be sarcastic, I can tell you that not many theists believe in God because of " arguments " or philosophy. I know my fellow Zoroastrians and probably Christians, etc are convinced by religious experience.

Yes, I'm aware many theists are not theists due to logical arguments. My "clearly" was, in fact, not sarcasm.

You're probably more educated on this than I am, and I will need time to think about what you said on the post before this one.

Okie doke.

That is good to know, Dakota. Thank you for enlightening the subject with those objections, I have not come across them before in my reading on cosmogony.

You're welcome.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 4:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:17:19 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
" The existence of the creator, Ohrmazd, is manifested by the formation of the creation. "
-- Denkard, book 3

Hello all, I want to know your opinion of the Kalam argument presented by William Craig. I have seen many of Craig's debates, and this argument is at least logically valid. It goes like this, basically:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

I believe in 1, because as it is said in the Denkard, book 4: " [...] every one comes into being from Him who has being. " I also believe in 2 because it is said in the Denkard, book 3: " Be it known that in finite time (i.e. this world) man rises in the scale of existence and becomes glorious through wisdom. " So I have revealed reason to accept both 1 and 2. However, I think that science has shown both 1 and 2 to be true as well.

It's a sound argument, but you'll find differing opinions as to the argument. Most of the arguments against it are really bad rebuttals (e.g. "who caused God?", "nothing began to exist," etc.), but I'm sure there are some good responses out there. I think this simple argument is a very strong one for the existence of God.

I've never heard of the Denkard, but I think that science definitely attests to the soundness of the KCA.

It's a valid argument (not necessary a sound one). The problem in logic that I see is that one cannot safely move from:

-The universe has a Cause
to
-That cause must be God
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 8:18:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 4:29:59 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:17:19 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
" The existence of the creator, Ohrmazd, is manifested by the formation of the creation. "
-- Denkard, book 3

Hello all, I want to know your opinion of the Kalam argument presented by William Craig. I have seen many of Craig's debates, and this argument is at least logically valid. It goes like this, basically:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

I believe in 1, because as it is said in the Denkard, book 4: " [...] every one comes into being from Him who has being. " I also believe in 2 because it is said in the Denkard, book 3: " Be it known that in finite time (i.e. this world) man rises in the scale of existence and becomes glorious through wisdom. " So I have revealed reason to accept both 1 and 2. However, I think that science has shown both 1 and 2 to be true as well.

It's a sound argument, but you'll find differing opinions as to the argument. Most of the arguments against it are really bad rebuttals (e.g. "who caused God?", "nothing began to exist," etc.), but I'm sure there are some good responses out there. I think this simple argument is a very strong one for the existence of God.

I've never heard of the Denkard, but I think that science definitely attests to the soundness of the KCA.

It's a valid argument (not necessary a sound one). The problem in logic that I see is that one cannot safely move from:

-The universe has a Cause
to
-That cause must be God

When the first cause is defined (and the definition provided is proved to be necessary) it turns out that this first cause IS God, by ANY reasonable definition of a God.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 8:34:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 4:29:59 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:17:19 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
" The existence of the creator, Ohrmazd, is manifested by the formation of the creation. "
-- Denkard, book 3

Hello all, I want to know your opinion of the Kalam argument presented by William Craig. I have seen many of Craig's debates, and this argument is at least logically valid. It goes like this, basically:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

I believe in 1, because as it is said in the Denkard, book 4: " [...] every one comes into being from Him who has being. " I also believe in 2 because it is said in the Denkard, book 3: " Be it known that in finite time (i.e. this world) man rises in the scale of existence and becomes glorious through wisdom. " So I have revealed reason to accept both 1 and 2. However, I think that science has shown both 1 and 2 to be true as well.

It's a sound argument, but you'll find differing opinions as to the argument. Most of the arguments against it are really bad rebuttals (e.g. "who caused God?", "nothing began to exist," etc.), but I'm sure there are some good responses out there. I think this simple argument is a very strong one for the existence of God.

I've never heard of the Denkard, but I think that science definitely attests to the soundness of the KCA.

It's a valid argument (not necessary a sound one). The problem in logic that I see is that one cannot safely move from:

-The universe has a Cause
to
-That cause must be God

That's because when arguing for God or at least a personal cause another premise is added, that being..."All timeless causes must be personal".
"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
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 9:17:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 4:29:59 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:17:19 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
" The existence of the creator, Ohrmazd, is manifested by the formation of the creation. "
-- Denkard, book 3

Hello all, I want to know your opinion of the Kalam argument presented by William Craig. I have seen many of Craig's debates, and this argument is at least logically valid. It goes like this, basically:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

I believe in 1, because as it is said in the Denkard, book 4: " [...] every one comes into being from Him who has being. " I also believe in 2 because it is said in the Denkard, book 3: " Be it known that in finite time (i.e. this world) man rises in the scale of existence and becomes glorious through wisdom. " So I have revealed reason to accept both 1 and 2. However, I think that science has shown both 1 and 2 to be true as well.

It's a sound argument, but you'll find differing opinions as to the argument. Most of the arguments against it are really bad rebuttals (e.g. "who caused God?", "nothing began to exist," etc.), but I'm sure there are some good responses out there. I think this simple argument is a very strong one for the existence of God.

I've never heard of the Denkard, but I think that science definitely attests to the soundness of the KCA.

It's a valid argument (not necessary a sound one). The problem in logic that I see is that one cannot safely move from:

-The universe has a Cause
to
-That cause must be God

The logical implication of the universe having a cause, is that the cause must, by necessity, be outside the universe unless you want to argue that it caused itself, which is logically incoherent. Whereas, an omnipotent entity which is outside of time, space, and matter, may be difficult to comprehend, but is not logically inconsistent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 9:25:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

People give and regive their opinions on this argument every five seconds. Here's mine, again:

The first premise has no strong warrant to support it. Mostly, proponents the argument try to get you to accept it by listing off several things which we know have both properties (1) began to exist, and (2) had a cause. Things like cars, houses, people, etc.

However, all of these things began to exist ex materia, not ex nihilo like the universe and it would be fallacious to combine both of these categories like there is no significant difference between them. Therefore, the argument must be rewritten one of two ways:

EX MATERIA
1) Everything that begins to exist ex materia has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist ex materia.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first premise is most likely true, but the second is not. And even it were, then the universe would be merely a new rearrangement of preexisting materials, not a product of some deity's pixie dust.

EX NIHILO
1) Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist ex nihilo.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Now the second premise is most likely true, but the first has absolutely no warrant. It's not enough to say "Things don't pop into existence ex nihilo nowadays; therefore, they never did" because that confuses the issue.

Firstly, no one claims the universe suddenly popped into existence from a state of absolute nothingness seconds prior. They merely claim the universe has existed for all time, and that there was no "before" the universe or nothingness which preceded it.

That's not entirely accurate...

http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

And secondly, even if they did (which, trust me, they don't), then that would mean something popped into existence from a prior state of nothingness, but since then, there has never been a similar state of nothingness, including right now. So of course things don't pop into existence from nothingness. Nothingness doesn't exist anymore.

I believe in 1, because as it is said in the Denkard, book 4: " [...] every one comes into being from Him who has being. " I also believe in 2 because it is said in the Denkard, book 3: " Be it known that in finite time (i.e. this world) man rises in the scale of existence and becomes glorious through wisdom. " So I have revealed reason to accept both 1 and 2.

Those are very poor reasons considering they're unsupported without already believing in God.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 9:27:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 9:17:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The logical implication of the universe having a cause, is that the cause must, by necessity, be outside the universe unless you want to argue that it caused itself, which is logically incoherent. Whereas, an omnipotent entity which is outside of time, space, and matter, may be difficult to comprehend, but is not logically inconsistent.

Even if we were to concede that this cause must be outside the universe (Cosmologists would dispute this) it still does not logically follow that the cause must be God with all the characteristics attributed to him by theologists.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 9:41:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 9:27:19 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/6/2013 9:17:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The logical implication of the universe having a cause, is that the cause must, by necessity, be outside the universe unless you want to argue that it caused itself, which is logically incoherent. Whereas, an omnipotent entity which is outside of time, space, and matter, may be difficult to comprehend, but is not logically inconsistent.

Even if we were to concede that this cause must be outside the universe (Cosmologists would dispute this) it still does not logically follow that the cause must be God with all the characteristics attributed to him by theologists.

If the cause isn't outside the universe itself, then it's causing it's own beginning. I don't see how that can stand, logically. How can something which doesn't exist yet, cause it's own beginning??

I think Garret is right, that most of us would call that being God, but I suppose that it's concievable that someone could make an argument that renames it.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 9:57:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 9:41:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/6/2013 9:27:19 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/6/2013 9:17:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The logical implication of the universe having a cause, is that the cause must, by necessity, be outside the universe unless you want to argue that it caused itself, which is logically incoherent. Whereas, an omnipotent entity which is outside of time, space, and matter, may be difficult to comprehend, but is not logically inconsistent.

Even if we were to concede that this cause must be outside the universe (Cosmologists would dispute this) it still does not logically follow that the cause must be God with all the characteristics attributed to him by theologists.

If the cause isn't outside the universe itself, then it's causing it's own beginning. I don't see how that can stand, logically. How can something which doesn't exist yet, cause it's own beginning??

I think Garret is right, that most of us would call that being God, but I suppose that it's concievable that someone could make an argument that renames it.

Well I can present you with the current scientific understanding of how the universe came to be, but as I'm only arguing that there is no logical imperative to conclude that a cause (even one outside the universe) must necessarily be God, even if the all the premises were true. Otherwise your just substituting "we don't know yet" with "therefore God".

There is however good reason to believe that these kind of extrapolations become more inaccurate as we examine irregular instances where the laws of physics don't apply, and time itself is upended. In which case mathematical, and observational evidences supersede logical extrapolations.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 11:56:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
Hello all, I want to know your opinion of the Kalam argument presented by William Craig. I

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

First premise is unsupportable, appears to be false, and is
obviously the result of dishonest twisting of evidence.

Second premise is also unsupportable.

Conclusion seems significant only if the meaning of "universe"
changes between the premises and conclusion. If the meaning
changes, the form is not valid. If the meaning doesn't change,
the the argument is trivial as well as indefensible.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 4:10:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 9:25:24 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

People give and regive their opinions on this argument every five seconds. Here's mine, again:

The first premise has no strong warrant to support it. Mostly, proponents the argument try to get you to accept it by listing off several things which we know have both properties (1) began to exist, and (2) had a cause. Things like cars, houses, people, etc.

However, all of these things began to exist ex materia, not ex nihilo like the universe and it would be fallacious to combine both of these categories like there is no significant difference between them. Therefore, the argument must be rewritten one of two ways:

EX MATERIA
1) Everything that begins to exist ex materia has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist ex materia.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first premise is most likely true, but the second is not. And even it were, then the universe would be merely a new rearrangement of preexisting materials, not a product of some deity's pixie dust.

EX NIHILO
1) Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist ex nihilo.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Now the second premise is most likely true, but the first has absolutely no warrant. It's not enough to say "Things don't pop into existence ex nihilo nowadays; therefore, they never did" because that confuses the issue.

Firstly, no one claims the universe suddenly popped into existence from a state of absolute nothingness seconds prior. They merely claim the universe has existed for all time, and that there was no "before" the universe or nothingness which preceded it.

That's not entirely accurate...

http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

Which part of my post is not entirely accurate, and how would you revise it to make it so? Sources don't exist just so you can say "You're wrong [1]" with nothing more, and I don't see anything in that source that contradicts anything I've said (with an admittedly cursory examination).
Orpheus
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 9:16:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 11:56:29 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:
Hello all, I want to know your opinion of the Kalam argument presented by William Craig. I

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

First premise is unsupportable, appears to be false, and is
obviously the result of dishonest twisting of evidence.

Second premise is also unsupportable.

Conclusion seems significant only if the meaning of "universe"
changes between the premises and conclusion. If the meaning
changes, the form is not valid. If the meaning doesn't change,
the the argument is trivial as well as indefensible.

This was one of the biggest non-answers I've seen in my short time on this site so far...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 10:18:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 9:16:20 AM, Orpheus wrote:

This was one of the biggest non-answers I've seen in my short time on this site so far...

In what sense? The original premises weren't supported with anything other than assertion, so they can be dismissed in the same way, no?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 10:24:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 10:18:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 9:16:20 AM, Orpheus wrote:

This was one of the biggest non-answers I've seen in my short time on this site so far...


In what sense? The original premises weren't supported with anything other than assertion, so they can be dismissed in the same way, no?

No. It's self-evident that something can't cause itself.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 10:26:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, it's illogical to conclude that the Universe never had a beginning, as demonstrated by Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 10:47:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 10:24:14 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2013 10:18:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 9:16:20 AM, Orpheus wrote:

This was one of the biggest non-answers I've seen in my short time on this site so far...


In what sense? The original premises weren't supported with anything other than assertion, so they can be dismissed in the same way, no?

No. It's self-evident that something can't cause itself.

It's also, generally, considered self-evident that there cannot be an "eternal uncaused cause"; everything we have experience with was caused by something else and is not eternal, so that invalidates the KCA as well.

The problem with the KCA is that it tries to extrapolate information about outside or before the universe inductively using information from inside and during the universe.

It's like sitting in my car, and recognizing that everything in the car runs off the engine, and trying to extrapolate how the car was built based on the fact that "Everything runs off the engine".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 10:49:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 9:57:01 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/6/2013 9:41:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/6/2013 9:27:19 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/6/2013 9:17:44 PM, medic0506 wrote:
The logical implication of the universe having a cause, is that the cause must, by necessity, be outside the universe unless you want to argue that it caused itself, which is logically incoherent. Whereas, an omnipotent entity which is outside of time, space, and matter, may be difficult to comprehend, but is not logically inconsistent.

Even if we were to concede that this cause must be outside the universe (Cosmologists would dispute this) it still does not logically follow that the cause must be God with all the characteristics attributed to him by theologists.

If the cause isn't outside the universe itself, then it's causing it's own beginning. I don't see how that can stand, logically. How can something which doesn't exist yet, cause it's own beginning??

I think Garret is right, that most of us would call that being God, but I suppose that it's concievable that someone could make an argument that renames it.

Well I can present you with the current scientific understanding of how the universe came to be, but as I'm only arguing that there is no logical imperative to conclude that a cause (even one outside the universe) must necessarily be God, even if the all the premises were true. Otherwise your just substituting "we don't know yet" with "therefore God".

There is however good reason to believe that these kind of extrapolations become more inaccurate as we examine irregular instances where the laws of physics don't apply, and time itself is upended. In which case mathematical, and observational evidences supersede logical extrapolations.

If the laws of physics don't apply and time is upended, then how can we say that mathematical conclusions remain rational??

I would be skeptical of the validity of any "observational" evidences you might apply to the origin of the universe. If we're reduced to accepting ideas like Hawking's "imaginary time", I'd say we're better off just sticking to our common sense and logic, because his conclusion doesn't provide an explanation for the beginning. That brings us right back to what the Bible says in Ecclesiastes, "No man can know the works of God from beginning to end".
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 10:50:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 10:26:06 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Also, it's illogical to conclude that the Universe never had a beginning, as demonstrated by Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

I'm not sure what you mean by this; the Grand Hotel didn't say anything about time or causality. It was a discussion of infinite sets, which shows the seemingly absurd notion of infinity...which would invalidate the infinite god, too, if you accepted it in that way.

Schrodinger's Cat was posited to show how absurd Quantum Mechanics was, yet QM is still the only answer we have, absurd or not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 10:56:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 4:10:57 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 9:25:24 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/6/2013 3:18:48 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 2/6/2013 2:58:10 PM, Hvaniratha wrote:

1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. The Universe, at some point in the finite past, began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence

People give and regive their opinions on this argument every five seconds. Here's mine, again:

The first premise has no strong warrant to support it. Mostly, proponents the argument try to get you to accept it by listing off several things which we know have both properties (1) began to exist, and (2) had a cause. Things like cars, houses, people, etc.

However, all of these things began to exist ex materia, not ex nihilo like the universe and it would be fallacious to combine both of these categories like there is no significant difference between them. Therefore, the argument must be rewritten one of two ways:

EX MATERIA
1) Everything that begins to exist ex materia has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist ex materia.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first premise is most likely true, but the second is not. And even it were, then the universe would be merely a new rearrangement of preexisting materials, not a product of some deity's pixie dust.

EX NIHILO
1) Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist ex nihilo.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Now the second premise is most likely true, but the first has absolutely no warrant. It's not enough to say "Things don't pop into existence ex nihilo nowadays; therefore, they never did" because that confuses the issue.

Firstly, no one claims the universe suddenly popped into existence from a state of absolute nothingness seconds prior. They merely claim the universe has existed for all time, and that there was no "before" the universe or nothingness which preceded it.

That's not entirely accurate...

http://www.big-bang-theory.com...

Which part of my post is not entirely accurate, and how would you revise it to make it so? Sources don't exist just so you can say "You're wrong [1]" with nothing more, and I don't see anything in that source that contradicts anything I've said (with an admittedly cursory examination).

The bolded part, where you said that no one believes that, is what is contradicted by the source.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 11:17:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 10:47:02 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 10:24:14 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/7/2013 10:18:40 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 9:16:20 AM, Orpheus wrote:

This was one of the biggest non-answers I've seen in my short time on this site so far...


In what sense? The original premises weren't supported with anything other than assertion, so they can be dismissed in the same way, no?

No. It's self-evident that something can't cause itself.

It's also, generally, considered self-evident that there cannot be an "eternal uncaused cause";

It is??

everything we have experience with was caused by something else and is not eternal, so that invalidates the KCA as well.

That presupposes that we have experienced everything that it is possible to experience, and that it's not possible for something eternal to exist, outside what we've experienced. There are only two options, an uncaused cause or infinite regress. Since infinite regress provides no answer, it is not a logical choice.

The problem with the KCA is that it tries to extrapolate information about outside or before the universe inductively using information from inside and during the universe.

It's like sitting in my car, and recognizing that everything in the car runs off the engine, and trying to extrapolate how the car was built based on the fact that "Everything runs off the engine".