Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Kalam disproves God?

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 6:26:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

Yeah, I think the problem with your argument is that you're assuming "laws" must be physical laws, i.e. laws that describe the universe. Without the universe, there could also be metaphysical laws, and they could be laws of logic. It could be that the law of causality that the first premise is based on is a metaphysical law.
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 6:50:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

I agree that the Kalam is a failure, but your objection seems a little off. First of all, you are making the assumption that a "before" the universe is coherent. Secondly, you are assuming that just because there was not a law of causality, that if God existed, he could not cause the universe despite any restricting laws.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 8:15:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

I am not too sure what you mean, but maybe are getting at how the universe can't have a scientific cause, since it can't be applied outside of space and time.

Some one like William Craig uses talks about the "metaphysical". Peter Sleazak does a good job of taking Craig to task for trying to shift from causation used in the scientific sense and how it is used (arguable improperly) in Craigs claims.
"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
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 9:08:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 6:26:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

Yeah, I think the problem with your argument is that you're assuming "laws" must be physical laws, i.e. laws that describe the universe. Without the universe, there could also be metaphysical laws, and they could be laws of logic. It could be that the law of causality that the first premise is based on is a metaphysical law.

Then wouldn't God be limited to these metaphysical laws? An unlimited God not under any restrictions is what this argument is arguing against.

At 6/3/2013 6:50:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

I agree that the Kalam is a failure, but your objection seems a little off. First of all, you are making the assumption that a "before" the universe is coherent. Secondly, you are assuming that just because there was not a law of causality, that if God existed, he could not cause the universe despite any restricting laws.

I personally don't think before the universe is coherent, but I don't think a Kalamist would hold such a view. I know the argument is limited in what God it attempts to disprove.

At 6/3/2013 8:15:12 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

I am not too sure what you mean, but maybe are getting at how the universe can't have a scientific cause, since it can't be applied outside of space and time.

No, I was saying the universe must have a scientific like cause if this argument is correct.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 2:59:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 9:08:55 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:26:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

Yeah, I think the problem with your argument is that you're assuming "laws" must be physical laws, i.e. laws that describe the universe. Without the universe, there could also be metaphysical laws, and they could be laws of logic. It could be that the law of causality that the first premise is based on is a metaphysical law.

Then wouldn't God be limited to these metaphysical laws? An unlimited God not under any restrictions is what this argument is arguing against.

I don't think you'll find many theists who believe in a God who can break the laws of logic and such. For instance, it'd entail that God could be both Himself and not-God at the same time, or that God can wish Himself out of existence while existing simultaneously. A lot of people don't even view "logic" as some sort of limiting law, because whatever's on the other side of the limit literally makes no sense.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 3:09:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Cause in P3 is the Uncaused cause, the ultimate causer.

So truly the failure is your understanding.

Basically everything has a cause, but there must be a first cause that is uncaused, everything had to start somewhere.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 3:32:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 3:09:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The Cause in P3 is the Uncaused cause, the ultimate causer.

So truly the failure is your understanding.

Basically everything has a cause, but there must be a first cause that is uncaused, everything had to start somewhere.

By the way God doesn't break the laws as you put it, He came first , so He is the origin of the laws!!
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 1:44:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 2:59:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/3/2013 9:08:55 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:26:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

Yeah, I think the problem with your argument is that you're assuming "laws" must be physical laws, i.e. laws that describe the universe. Without the universe, there could also be metaphysical laws, and they could be laws of logic. It could be that the law of causality that the first premise is based on is a metaphysical law.

Then wouldn't God be limited to these metaphysical laws? An unlimited God not under any restrictions is what this argument is arguing against.

I don't think you'll find many theists who believe in a God who can break the laws of logic and such. For instance, it'd entail that God could be both Himself and not-God at the same time, or that God can wish Himself out of existence while existing simultaneously. A lot of people don't even view "logic" as some sort of limiting law, because whatever's on the other side of the limit literally makes no sense.

True, but how is causality a law of logic?

At 6/4/2013 3:32:20 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/4/2013 3:09:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The Cause in P3 is the Uncaused cause, the ultimate causer.

So truly the failure is your understanding.

Basically everything has a cause, but there must be a first cause that is uncaused, everything had to start somewhere.

By the way God doesn't break the laws as you put it, He came first , so He is the origin of the laws!!

Your first post was a complete non sequitur and your second shows you don't understand what I'm saying.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 5:27:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 3:10:15 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
What is typical God ?

Unlimited.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 7:19:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 1:44:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 2:59:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/3/2013 9:08:55 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:26:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

Yeah, I think the problem with your argument is that you're assuming "laws" must be physical laws, i.e. laws that describe the universe. Without the universe, there could also be metaphysical laws, and they could be laws of logic. It could be that the law of causality that the first premise is based on is a metaphysical law.

Then wouldn't God be limited to these metaphysical laws? An unlimited God not under any restrictions is what this argument is arguing against.

I don't think you'll find many theists who believe in a God who can break the laws of logic and such. For instance, it'd entail that God could be both Himself and not-God at the same time, or that God can wish Himself out of existence while existing simultaneously. A lot of people don't even view "logic" as some sort of limiting law, because whatever's on the other side of the limit literally makes no sense.

True, but how is causality a law of logic?

It really depends on what we mean by a "law of causality." I take certain metaphysical principles -- such as P1 of the KCA -- to be artifacts of reality.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2013 7:25:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 5:27:57 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 3:10:15 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
What is typical God ?

Unlimited.

everything that begins to exist doesn't include God, I guess you agree.

The universe falls under the cause rule which is P1 because it begins to exist.

But the cause of the universe can actually either take us back to P1, or it needs to be God ( god being the ultimate causer that doesn't need a cause, as he doesn't begin to exist) .

So about the Kalam argument I can agree with you on one thing, it is short and not detailed but yet true . I mean he could have put it this way:

P1:Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2:I began to exist.

C1:There is God

The conclusion seems to be detached from P1, but you actually either find a cause that lead you back to P1 or find the ultimate causer that is God.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 12:55:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

There may have been pre-universe laws. The question is, has the universe been shown to begin to exist? If so, then has reality been show to begin to exist?
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!
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 1:14:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 7:25:39 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/4/2013 5:27:57 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 3:10:15 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
What is typical God ?

Unlimited.

everything that begins to exist doesn't include God, I guess you agree.

The universe falls under the cause rule which is P1 because it begins to exist.

But the cause of the universe can actually either take us back to P1, or it needs to be God ( god being the ultimate causer that doesn't need a cause, as he doesn't begin to exist) .

So about the Kalam argument I can agree with you on one thing, it is short and not detailed but yet true . I mean he could have put it this way:

P1:Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2:I began to exist.

C1:There is God

The conclusion seems to be detached from P1, but you actually either find a cause that lead you back to P1 or find the ultimate causer that is God.
If we are to accept that your god is the uncaused cause, purely on your say so then we must also accept the billions of other uncaused causes ie gods. I also have not seen proof that the universe began to exist or if it did what came before it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 4:36:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 12:55:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

There may have been pre-universe laws. The question is, has the universe been shown to begin to exist? If so, then has reality been show to begin to exist?

Our scientific research is based on the assumption that it began to exist, cause we don't know of anything that never began to exist.

What reality? define it. whatever exists is real, so if God exist he is real, as he is infinite, then reality depends on him. Reality depends on whatever exists, it doesn't stand on its own.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 4:40:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 1:14:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
If we are to accept that your god is the uncaused cause, purely on your say so then we must also accept the billions of other uncaused causes ie gods. I also have not seen proof that the universe began to exist or if it did what came before it?

Well if you accept what I said purely you simply accept there is a creator, a God, it doesn't say what religion is true , it's just an argument for God existence.

When you accept cosmological argument, you don't become a religious, you still need to investigate to find what religion or religions make a sense with the rest of knowledge you have.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 6:16:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 4:40:03 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/5/2013 1:14:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
If we are to accept that your god is the uncaused cause, purely on your say so then we must also accept the billions of other uncaused causes ie gods. I also have not seen proof that the universe began to exist or if it did what came before it?

Well if you accept what I said purely you simply accept there is a creator, a God, it doesn't say what religion is true , it's just an argument for God existence.

When you accept cosmological argument, you don't become a religious, you still need to investigate to find what religion or religions make a sense with the rest of knowledge you have.
Ahh, I see. That's when it becomes a raffle. Once you accept that a god exists, all you need do is determine which of the billions of gods will let you live forever. The Kalam argument is absolutely useless for someone seeking heaven then. So why do religionists keep referring to it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 7:01:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 6:16:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:40:03 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/5/2013 1:14:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
If we are to accept that your god is the uncaused cause, purely on your say so then we must also accept the billions of other uncaused causes ie gods. I also have not seen proof that the universe began to exist or if it did what came before it?

Well if you accept what I said purely you simply accept there is a creator, a God, it doesn't say what religion is true , it's just an argument for God existence.

When you accept cosmological argument, you don't become a religious, you still need to investigate to find what religion or religions make a sense with the rest of knowledge you have.
Ahh, I see. That's when it becomes a raffle. Once you accept that a god exists, all you need do is determine which of the billions of gods will let you live forever. The Kalam argument is absolutely useless for someone seeking heaven then. So why do religionists keep referring to it?

I don't see where you're getting billions from. There are actually very few concepts of God that you have to choose from. You have religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, etc. The idea of one deity to many is much more logical than many, so you're pretty much limited to Monotheism and the religions that are of it.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 7:14:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 7:01:50 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 6/5/2013 6:16:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:40:03 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/5/2013 1:14:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
If we are to accept that your god is the uncaused cause, purely on your say so then we must also accept the billions of other uncaused causes ie gods. I also have not seen proof that the universe began to exist or if it did what came before it?

Well if you accept what I said purely you simply accept there is a creator, a God, it doesn't say what religion is true , it's just an argument for God existence.

When you accept cosmological argument, you don't become a religious, you still need to investigate to find what religion or religions make a sense with the rest of knowledge you have.
Ahh, I see. That's when it becomes a raffle. Once you accept that a god exists, all you need do is determine which of the billions of gods will let you live forever. The Kalam argument is absolutely useless for someone seeking heaven then. So why do religionists keep referring to it?

I don't see where you're getting billions from. There are actually very few concepts of God that you have to choose from. You have religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, etc. The idea of one deity to many is much more logical than many, so you're pretty much limited to Monotheism and the religions that are of it.
Is the shia god the same as the sunni god, is jesus the same as allah, is your particular god the same as your neighbours? There are billions of gods, ergo billions of uncaused causes, it's just up to you to determine the right one. If you get it wrong.....it's hell for you..........have fun with that.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 7:25:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 7:14:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/5/2013 7:01:50 AM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 6/5/2013 6:16:19 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/5/2013 4:40:03 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/5/2013 1:14:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
If we are to accept that your god is the uncaused cause, purely on your say so then we must also accept the billions of other uncaused causes ie gods. I also have not seen proof that the universe began to exist or if it did what came before it?

Well if you accept what I said purely you simply accept there is a creator, a God, it doesn't say what religion is true , it's just an argument for God existence.

When you accept cosmological argument, you don't become a religious, you still need to investigate to find what religion or religions make a sense with the rest of knowledge you have.
Ahh, I see. That's when it becomes a raffle. Once you accept that a god exists, all you need do is determine which of the billions of gods will let you live forever. The Kalam argument is absolutely useless for someone seeking heaven then. So why do religionists keep referring to it?

I don't see where you're getting billions from. There are actually very few concepts of God that you have to choose from. You have religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, etc. The idea of one deity to many is much more logical than many, so you're pretty much limited to Monotheism and the religions that are of it.
Is the shia god the same as the sunni god, is jesus the same as allah, is your particular god the same as your neighbours? There are billions of gods, ergo billions of uncaused causes, it's just up to you to determine the right one. If you get it wrong.....it's hell for you..........have fun with that.

God who spoke to Moses is Abraham God, Moses God, Jesus God, and Mohammad God, there is no differing here, the difference is in the religious practices.

Jews (or a lot of them) did not respect their covenant with God, Christians called Jesus the son of God and made him associate to God (the creator), Shia almost worship Ali (some of them do worship him actually) the cousin of the prophet Mohammad and husband of his daughter Fatima, for whatever reason. there are a lot of sects that derived from the religions because how corrupted people are. but all of them know who is the creator, God that is referred to in the Kalam cosmological argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 9:42:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2013 7:19:23 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/4/2013 1:44:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 6/4/2013 2:59:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/3/2013 9:08:55 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:26:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

Yeah, I think the problem with your argument is that you're assuming "laws" must be physical laws, i.e. laws that describe the universe. Without the universe, there could also be metaphysical laws, and they could be laws of logic. It could be that the law of causality that the first premise is based on is a metaphysical law.

Then wouldn't God be limited to these metaphysical laws? An unlimited God not under any restrictions is what this argument is arguing against.

I don't think you'll find many theists who believe in a God who can break the laws of logic and such. For instance, it'd entail that God could be both Himself and not-God at the same time, or that God can wish Himself out of existence while existing simultaneously. A lot of people don't even view "logic" as some sort of limiting law, because whatever's on the other side of the limit literally makes no sense.

True, but how is causality a law of logic?

It really depends on what we mean by a "law of causality." I take certain metaphysical principles -- such as P1 of the KCA -- to be artifacts of reality.

The problem is metaphysical laws only have bearing on reality, and every possible reality. Thus If there was nothing, there would be no reality or "restrictions" (restrictions are something). So, what justification for the first premise? If we start with nothing, what is going to prevent something from existing if nothing else exists to prevent this?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 5:26:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 4:36:13 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/5/2013 12:55:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/3/2013 6:17:02 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
God isn't under any laws or influenced by anything. The Kalam is as follows

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

If someone wants to believe the Kalam is valid, they must hold the position that before the universe there must be some certain types of laws. If there was no laws before, then P3 is false, the universe didn't need a cause since there would be no law of causality and premise 1 wouldn't be true. But if there needs to be laws before the universe, then the typical god can't be the cause.

Do you guys find anything wrong here?

There may have been pre-universe laws. The question is, has the universe been shown to begin to exist? If so, then has reality been show to begin to exist?

Our scientific research is based on the assumption that it began to exist, cause we don't know of anything that never began to exist.

What reality? define it. whatever exists is real, so if God exist he is real, as he is infinite, then reality depends on him. Reality depends on whatever exists, it doesn't stand on its own.

Existence? Anything and everything which exists?

If God exists, then he is real. If this supposed god is real and infinite, then it is one of many concepts on infinity in reality. Since this god is a part of reality, but not the whole of it, then this god depends on the reality it exists in.

Reality depends on whatever exists? No no no. Reality is whatever exists, anywhere, anytime, anyhow. If there are infinitely many universes, then they are inside reality. If there are gods beyond those universes, they are inside the same reality. If there is transcension beyond all that, it is a part of reality also. Reality is all in existence, maybe it even includes that which does not exist, or could exist, or couldn't. I can't really say.

In fact, I could be talking gibberish. But if it is, then it is more coherent gibberish than "because deities".

I'll ask again, anyway, has reality been shown to have begun existing?
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
6/5/2013 5:31:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 9:42:46 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The problem is metaphysical laws only have bearing on reality,

Maybe not even always reality, hmm?

and every possible reality.

Evidence?

Thus If there was nothing, there would be no reality

Sure?

or "restrictions" (restrictions are something).

Assertion. Do we know if "metaphysical nothing" has no restrictions?

So, what justification for the first premise? If we start with nothing, what is going to prevent something from existing if nothing else exists to prevent this?

What is going to cause something to exist is nothing else exists to cause it?
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!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2013 8:13:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/5/2013 5:31:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/5/2013 9:42:46 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The problem is metaphysical laws only have bearing on reality,

Maybe not even always reality, hmm?

and every possible reality.

Evidence?

Thus If there was nothing, there would be no reality

Sure?

or "restrictions" (restrictions are something).

Assertion. Do we know if "metaphysical nothing" has no restrictions?

Yes. This is because, "restrictions" are something. If there was nothing, there would be nothing.


So, what justification for the first premise? If we start with nothing, what is going to prevent something from existing if nothing else exists to prevent this?

What is going to cause something to exist is nothing else exists to cause it?