Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The KCA is not an argument for Theism

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:38:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God could have ended his existence at T=0, which simultaneously caused The Big Bang. This would mean that even if we accept that a powerful personal being caused the universe just for the sake of argument, it would not follow that God exists.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:53:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:38:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God could have ended his existence at T=0, which simultaneously caused The Big Bang. This would mean that even if we accept that a powerful personal being caused the universe just for the sake of argument, it would not follow that God exists.

That's only one of many issues with the general usage of the KCA (And, on a side note, was the final premise of a cool book I read years ago called "God's Debris").

They use it as an opening to argue for the necessity of a creator at some point. While what you posit is plausible, I'm sure the MGB proponents will argue that the idea of God destroying himself is a non-sequitor.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 11:20:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem with that is that in order for something to End something must be subject to time. If the entity is timeless it cannot end.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 11:25:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:53:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:38:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God could have ended his existence at T=0, which simultaneously caused The Big Bang. This would mean that even if we accept that a powerful personal being caused the universe just for the sake of argument, it would not follow that God exists.

That's only one of many issues with the general usage of the KCA (And, on a side note, was the final premise of a cool book I read years ago called "God's Debris").

They use it as an opening to argue for the necessity of a creator at some point. While what you posit is plausible, I'm sure the MGB proponents will argue that the idea of God destroying himself is a non-sequitor.

What I'm speaking of only pertains to the "personal cause of the universe" definition of God pertaining to the KCA. If they have to bring the MGB concept into it, then it shows the KCA cannot stand on it's own two feet.

Either way though, a MGB is maximally free, as freedom is great. He could freely chose to make the ultimate sacrifice; ending is conscious experience out of some divine creative expression of love for the physical universe. If he is not free to do this, he is not maximally great as he is forced to exist against his will.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 11:29:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 11:20:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
The problem with that is that in order for something to End something must be subject to time. If the entity is timeless it cannot end.

I see nothing logically or metaphysically contradictory in the idea of God existing causally prior (but not temporally prior) to T=0, then freely choosing to end his existence in time simultaneously with T=0, which causes the universe to begin to exist as a result. If it is conceivable, God could do it. This follows from the commonly understood meaning of omnipotence.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 11:31:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:38:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The KCA is not an argument for Theism

Theists use it as an argument for theism. They wouldn't bother with it if they didn't think it was an argument for theism. And if motivated believers in theism didn't use it, then nobody would, because it's a silly and self-contradictory argument based on equivocation.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 11:55:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 11:31:26 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:38:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The KCA is not an argument for Theism

Theists use it as an argument for theism. They wouldn't bother with it if they didn't think it was an argument for theism. And if motivated believers in theism didn't use it, then nobody would, because it's a silly and self-contradictory argument based on equivocation.

I didn't say it isn't used as an argument for Theism, I said it isn't an argument for theism. "God exists" does not follow from "God caused the universe".
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:02:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 11:29:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I see nothing logically or metaphysically contradictory in the idea of God existing causally prior (but not temporally prior) to T=0, then freely choosing to end his existence in time simultaneously with T=0, which causes the universe to begin to exist as a result. If it is conceivable, God could do it. This follows from the commonly understood meaning of omnipotence.

If the entity is not both spaceless and timeless then said entity would need to have a cause as well, if you accept the KCA argument. If said entity is both spaceless and timeless then I can only assume what those mean based on Physics, and a timeless entity would never end from the perspective of our universe. If you insist on a clear description of Timeless and Spaceless you need only look up Gravitational Singularity. The problem is ether with accepting the argument or with the commonly understood meaing of omnipotence. However, since KCA only claims the entity to be Timeless, Spaceless, and for some reason immaterial the added claim of Omnipotence is mute since that's not really what KCA claims.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:14:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:02:01 AM, medv4380 wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:29:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I see nothing logically or metaphysically contradictory in the idea of God existing causally prior (but not temporally prior) to T=0, then freely choosing to end his existence in time simultaneously with T=0, which causes the universe to begin to exist as a result. If it is conceivable, God could do it. This follows from the commonly understood meaning of omnipotence.

If the entity is not both spaceless and timeless then said entity would need to have a cause as well, if you accept the KCA argument. If said entity is both spaceless and timeless then I can only assume what those mean based on Physics, and a timeless entity would never end from the perspective of our universe.

If God wanted to end his existence simultaneous with T=0, he could. You are talking about a "timeless entity" as if we are just talking some static timeless entity without the ability to make choices.

If you insist on a clear description of Timeless and Spaceless you need only look up Gravitational Singularity. The problem is ether with accepting the argument or with the commonly understood meaing of omnipotence. However, since KCA only claims the entity to be Timeless, Spaceless, and for some reason immaterial the added claim of Omnipotence is mute since that's not really what KCA claims.

The Kalam also argues that the cause must be personal with free will. A being with free will could freely choose to end his existence at The Big Bang without contradiction.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:21:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:14:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The Kalam also argues that the cause must be personal with free will. A being with free will could freely choose to end his existence at The Big Bang without contradiction.

I didn't think the Kalam on its own had anything to support personal and free will?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:26:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:21:30 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:14:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The Kalam also argues that the cause must be personal with free will. A being with free will could freely choose to end his existence at The Big Bang without contradiction.

I didn't think the Kalam on its own had anything to support personal and free will?

It all depends if we are discussing the full Kalam Cosmological Argument or not, with this premise:

P: The cause must be timeless, changeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:33:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:26:46 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:21:30 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:14:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The Kalam also argues that the cause must be personal with free will. A being with free will could freely choose to end his existence at The Big Bang without contradiction.

I didn't think the Kalam on its own had anything to support personal and free will?

It all depends if we are discussing the full Kalam Cosmological Argument or not, with this premise:

P: The cause must be timeless, changeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal.

I like to give Kalam more credit than that. As much as I don't agree with it, itself, WLC's unsupported extra P just makes it completely ridiculous.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:47:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:33:17 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:26:46 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:21:30 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:14:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The Kalam also argues that the cause must be personal with free will. A being with free will could freely choose to end his existence at The Big Bang without contradiction.

I didn't think the Kalam on its own had anything to support personal and free will?

It all depends if we are discussing the full Kalam Cosmological Argument or not, with this premise:

P: The cause must be timeless, changeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal.

I like to give Kalam more credit than that. As much as I don't agree with it, itself, WLC's unsupported extra P just makes it completely ridiculous.

He has arguments to defend it. Such as the "Origin of a Temporal Effect from a Timeless Cause" dilemma, attempting to show that the cause of the universe must be a personal free agent. He argues that the cause of the material cannot be be material (that would be contradictory), so it must be immaterial. The cause of space-time cannot be in space or time (that would be contradictory), so it is spaceless and timeless. Since it is timeless, it is changeless, since change requires time. Therefore, if the universe had a cause, the cause must be timeless, changeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal. This is what people know to be as God....Apparently.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 1:19:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:21:30 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:14:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The Kalam also argues that the cause must be personal with free will. A being with free will could freely choose to end his existence at The Big Bang without contradiction.

I didn't think the Kalam on its own had anything to support personal and free will?

Right. WLC says that Kalam just gets you do some cause, and then other arguments are used to "prove" the nature of that cause.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 1:21:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 1:19:28 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:21:30 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:14:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The Kalam also argues that the cause must be personal with free will. A being with free will could freely choose to end his existence at The Big Bang without contradiction.

I didn't think the Kalam on its own had anything to support personal and free will?

Right. WLC says that Kalam just gets you do some cause, and then other arguments are used to "prove" the nature of that cause.

I think he argued personal to start it at a specific time, or used "fine-tuning" to add all the other attributes.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 1:22:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 11:20:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
The problem with that is that in order for something to End something must be subject to time. If the entity is timeless it cannot end.

How can a timeless being create anything at all?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 10:04:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 1:22:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:20:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
The problem with that is that in order for something to End something must be subject to time. If the entity is timeless it cannot end.

How can a timeless being create anything at all?

Good question, and I'd love to elaborate on it, but it would be germane to the debate topic I presented you for the tournament. If you choose to accept the topic I would rather discuss it there. Otherwise we both may have a problem discussing material for four rounds.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 10:28:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 1:22:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:20:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
The problem with that is that in order for something to End something must be subject to time. If the entity is timeless it cannot end.

How can a timeless being create anything at all?

Changeless doesn't mean immutable.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 10:36:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So a knowleadgeable entity, Able of extraordinary things , with a free will , and no cause, choses to end itself right after making this universe ?!

well wide imagination.

but what would the concequence of such an idea be ?

A universe working on its own , abondonned. and no more extraordinary things happening. It isn't impossible but purposeless. if there is no reason the "God " ends himself that means He does things for no purpose, including creating this universe.

But purpose seems to be present everywhere in the universe !

Do you know of anything in the universe that has no purpose-including flies- ? (serious question)

So it's quite not possible for a purposeless entity to create a purposeful world.

Now the possibilty that He ended himself for a purpose. He is the cause of everything yet was not caused by anything. what could the reason he wants to end himself? honestly I don't see there could be something, and in this case His decision would be silly or foolish and purposeless
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 11:23:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:38:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
God could have ended his existence at T=0, which simultaneously caused The Big Bang. This would mean that even if we accept that a powerful personal being caused the universe just for the sake of argument, it would not follow that God exists.

Haha, really grasping for anything at this point now aren't ya? ;-) Even admitting God's Existence to disprove God's existence.

One problem, if God's essence is his existence then there is no possible world in which he would willingly choose self annihilation (nota bene, not sacrifice, but actual annihilation of the self- a wiping out of substance)- it would simply not be in his nature to snuff himself out for a contingent creation that depends on his sustaining it.

Other problem, it plausible that substances (especially necessary ones) cannot be eliminated or made into nothing. This has always been the thought of the soul in general since it's a substance not a property thing. Only property things are possibly generated and possibly corrupted (destroyed), but substances, though possible generated, don't don't seem to have anything about them that would dictate corruption. Takes for instance the universe, it is a substance possibly and it was generated but it will never cease to be. And with God, since there is no generation, there is no corruption.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 11:32:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 10:28:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 1:22:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:20:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
The problem with that is that in order for something to End something must be subject to time. If the entity is timeless it cannot end.

How can a timeless being create anything at all?

Changeless doesn't mean immutable.

Not to nit pick, but aren't Changeless and Immutable synonyms. You'd have to go into some very confusing semantics to explain what you mean by that.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 11:34:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 11:32:36 AM, medv4380 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 10:28:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 1:22:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:20:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
The problem with that is that in order for something to End something must be subject to time. If the entity is timeless it cannot end.

How can a timeless being create anything at all?

Changeless doesn't mean immutable.

Not to nit pick, but aren't Changeless and Immutable synonyms. You'd have to go into some very confusing semantics to explain what you mean by that.

Changeless means "X" is not changing, immutable means "x" cannot change. Not the same.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 11:40:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 11:34:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 11:32:36 AM, medv4380 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 10:28:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 1:22:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:20:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
The problem with that is that in order for something to End something must be subject to time. If the entity is timeless it cannot end.

How can a timeless being create anything at all?

Changeless doesn't mean immutable.

Not to nit pick, but aren't Changeless and Immutable synonyms. You'd have to go into some very confusing semantics to explain what you mean by that.

Changeless means "X" is not changing, immutable means "x" cannot change. Not the same.

That's very confusing semantics!! ;-)
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:15:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd just like to add to this that such a suicide--given fine-tuning--would be beautifully selfless, something we should expect from a remarkably benevolent individual. I like this idea very much.
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:19:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, and don't forget that God isn't the only deity that's candidate for cause of the universe, so while his metaphysical necessity would be problematic, it doesn't really matter: other gods could accomplish this.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:36:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 11:40:10 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/30/2013 11:34:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 11:32:36 AM, medv4380 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 10:28:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 1:22:05 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:20:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
The problem with that is that in order for something to End something must be subject to time. If the entity is timeless it cannot end.

How can a timeless being create anything at all?

Changeless doesn't mean immutable.

Not to nit pick, but aren't Changeless and Immutable synonyms. You'd have to go into some very confusing semantics to explain what you mean by that.

Changeless means "X" is not changing, immutable means "x" cannot change. Not the same.

That's very confusing semantics!! ;-)

Not really.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:40:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:15:53 PM, Pwner wrote:
I'd just like to add to this that such a suicide--given fine-tuning--would be beautifully selfless, something we should expect from a remarkably benevolent individual. I like this idea very much.

I agree. Such a being who would sacrifice his perfect existence as a creative expression of love, falls right in line with omnibenevolence.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:51:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:19:39 PM, Pwner wrote:
Oh, and don't forget that God isn't the only deity that's candidate for cause of the universe, so while his metaphysical necessity would be problematic, it doesn't really matter: other gods could accomplish this.

An argument from perfection can be made from a first cause as Aquinas has as well as Pruss..

and pantheism lolz
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:52:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:40:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:15:53 PM, Pwner wrote:
I'd just like to add to this that such a suicide--given fine-tuning--would be beautifully selfless, something we should expect from a remarkably benevolent individual. I like this idea very much.

I agree. Such a being who would sacrifice his perfect existence as a creative expression of love, falls right in line with omnibenevolence.

What!? lol, that's non-sense, love presupposes its object and if its object doesn't exist it cannot be logically God loving anything. This isn't even metaphysics you're doing here..