Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Objections to cosmological arguments

emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:49:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I need some brief objections to modal logic and ontological arguments. I am looking for any counter-apologists to help me out, this is for a PP I am in the process of making.

Kalam's;

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Leibnizian;

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Thomistic;

1. What we observe in this universe is contingent. (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
2. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite.
3. The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite.
4. There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:50:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Same as below. I could outline things which seem problematic, but I'm an amateur.
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!
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:54:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:50:25 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Same as below. I could outline things which seem problematic, but I'm an amateur.

Sound ones, lol.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:01:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you want arguments that show the proposed arguments to be unsound, or that show that the proposed arguments with the conclusion "God exists", or "deities of some kind exist", are unsound?
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
6/9/2013 6:04:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:49:09 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
I need some brief objections to modal logic and ontological arguments. I am looking for any counter-apologists to help me out, this is for a PP I am in the process of making.

Kalam's;

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

Seems correct, but isn't necessarily so. Quantum phenomena?

2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Also seems correct. The singularity?

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

A cause is as vague as you can get. It is almost meaningless. "The front door of our house being unexpectedly open had a cause".
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
6/9/2013 6:17:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First, what definition of universe is being used? Some define the universe as everything that exists (which would include God), and some define it as everything physical that exists (which excludes God). Some, like Alexander Vilenkin, defines universe as simply our expanding space-time region. Also, there are many philosophical definitions of "begins to exist" which are incompatible and we are left without a reason to think one is absolute. Also, which philosophical view of causality are we adhering to? Many different views on causality lead to different results. Therefore, without deeper clarification, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trivial as presented in this thread.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:21:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:17:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
First, what definition of universe is being used? Some define the universe as everything that exists (which would include God), and some define it as everything physical that exists (which excludes God). Some, like Alexander Vilenkin, defines universe as simply our expanding space-time region. Also, there are many philosophical definitions of "begins to exist" which are incompatible and we are left without a reason to think one is absolute. Also, which philosophical view of causality are we adhering to? Many different views on causality lead to different results. Therefore, without deeper clarification, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trivial as presented in this thread.

Very important distinction. I'd take it to mean our physical universe, excluding any other possible universes, or non-physical things.

And here a pro arrives. :P
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
6/9/2013 6:24:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What's a PP, Rational?
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
6/9/2013 6:31:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:29:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:24:48 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What's a PP, Rational?

I do not know to be honest.

I was thinking if it's some college thing, then I cba. :P
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
6/9/2013 6:35:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:21:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:17:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
First, what definition of universe is being used? Some define the universe as everything that exists (which would include God), and some define it as everything physical that exists (which excludes God). Some, like Alexander Vilenkin, defines universe as simply our expanding space-time region. Also, there are many philosophical definitions of "begins to exist" which are incompatible and we are left without a reason to think one is absolute. Also, which philosophical view of causality are we adhering to? Many different views on causality lead to different results. Therefore, without deeper clarification, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trivial as presented in this thread.

Very important distinction. I'd take it to mean our physical universe, excluding any other possible universes, or non-physical things.

And here a pro arrives. :P

Also, your definition there is not the same as William Lane Craig's or Alexander Vilenkin's. This is why the KCA is floating in murky waters, as the words in the argument could mean so many things.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:36:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:21:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:17:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
First, what definition of universe is being used? Some define the universe as everything that exists (which would include God), and some define it as everything physical that exists (which excludes God). Some, like Alexander Vilenkin, defines universe as simply our expanding space-time region. Also, there are many philosophical definitions of "begins to exist" which are incompatible and we are left without a reason to think one is absolute. Also, which philosophical view of causality are we adhering to? Many different views on causality lead to different results. Therefore, without deeper clarification, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trivial as presented in this thread.

Very important distinction. I'd take it to mean our physical universe, excluding any other possible universes, or non-physical things.

And here a pro arrives. :P

Well, your definition is very close with Alexander Vilenin's, but not William Lane Craig's.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:41:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:36:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:21:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:17:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
First, what definition of universe is being used? Some define the universe as everything that exists (which would include God), and some define it as everything physical that exists (which excludes God). Some, like Alexander Vilenkin, defines universe as simply our expanding space-time region. Also, there are many philosophical definitions of "begins to exist" which are incompatible and we are left without a reason to think one is absolute. Also, which philosophical view of causality are we adhering to? Many different views on causality lead to different results. Therefore, without deeper clarification, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trivial as presented in this thread.

Very important distinction. I'd take it to mean our physical universe, excluding any other possible universes, or non-physical things.

And here a pro arrives. :P

Well, your definition is very close with Alexander Vilenin's, but not William Lane Craig's.

How does he define 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!
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:43:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:49:09 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
I need some brief objections to modal logic and ontological arguments. I am looking for any counter-apologists to help me out, this is for a PP I am in the process of making.

Kalam's;

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

That seems likely, but not proven.

2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Again, likely but not proven.

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Only follows because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. Not a proof.

Leibnizian;

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

Likely, but not proven.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Why? Isn't that just assuming the theists were right all along?

3. The universe is an existing thing.

Yes.

4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

bad premises.

Thomistic;

1. What we observe in this universe is contingent. (i.e. dependent, or conditional)

Likely but not proven.

2. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite.

True.

3. The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite.

True.

4. There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes.

Yes, a first cause to our specific universe but that doesn't mean this first cause is God.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:47:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:41:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:36:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:21:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:17:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
First, what definition of universe is being used? Some define the universe as everything that exists (which would include God), and some define it as everything physical that exists (which excludes God). Some, like Alexander Vilenkin, defines universe as simply our expanding space-time region. Also, there are many philosophical definitions of "begins to exist" which are incompatible and we are left without a reason to think one is absolute. Also, which philosophical view of causality are we adhering to? Many different views on causality lead to different results. Therefore, without deeper clarification, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trivial as presented in this thread.

Very important distinction. I'd take it to mean our physical universe, excluding any other possible universes, or non-physical things.

And here a pro arrives. :P

Well, your definition is very close with Alexander Vilenin's, but not William Lane Craig's.

How does he define it?

by "universe" I mean the entire connected spacetime region. - Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin seems defines our universe as simply the expanding space-time region we occupy. William Lane Craig defines universe as all of physical reality. Obviously, the two definitions will lead to drastically different conclusions. We haven't even begun discussing the definitions for "begin to exist" or the different incompatible views of causality yet.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 7:02:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:47:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:41:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:36:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:21:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:17:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
First, what definition of universe is being used? Some define the universe as everything that exists (which would include God), and some define it as everything physical that exists (which excludes God). Some, like Alexander Vilenkin, defines universe as simply our expanding space-time region. Also, there are many philosophical definitions of "begins to exist" which are incompatible and we are left without a reason to think one is absolute. Also, which philosophical view of causality are we adhering to? Many different views on causality lead to different results. Therefore, without deeper clarification, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trivial as presented in this thread.

Very important distinction. I'd take it to mean our physical universe, excluding any other possible universes, or non-physical things.

And here a pro arrives. :P

Well, your definition is very close with Alexander Vilenin's, but not William Lane Craig's.

How does he define it?

by "universe" I mean the entire connected spacetime region. - Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin seems defines our universe as simply the expanding space-time region we occupy. William Lane Craig defines universe as all of physical reality. Obviously, the two definitions will lead to drastically different conclusions. We haven't even begun discussing the definitions for "begin to exist" or the different incompatible views of causality yet.

So one defines it as what is commonly known as the universe, and WLC defines it as the universe/multiverse. So WLC s supporting his argument so much harder?
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!
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:34:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:24:48 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What's a PP, Rational?

Power point.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:49:09 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
I need some brief objections to cosmological arguments. I am looking for any counter-apologists to help me out, this is for a PP I am in the process of making.

Kalam's;

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Leibnizian;

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Thomistic;

1. What we observe in this universe is contingent. (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
2. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite.
3. The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite.
4. There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes.

Fix'd*
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:39:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:47:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:41:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:36:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:21:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/9/2013 6:17:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
First, what definition of universe is being used? Some define the universe as everything that exists (which would include God), and some define it as everything physical that exists (which excludes God). Some, like Alexander Vilenkin, defines universe as simply our expanding space-time region. Also, there are many philosophical definitions of "begins to exist" which are incompatible and we are left without a reason to think one is absolute. Also, which philosophical view of causality are we adhering to? Many different views on causality lead to different results. Therefore, without deeper clarification, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trivial as presented in this thread.

Very important distinction. I'd take it to mean our physical universe, excluding any other possible universes, or non-physical things.

And here a pro arrives. :P

Well, your definition is very close with Alexander Vilenin's, but not William Lane Craig's.

How does he define it?

by "universe" I mean the entire connected spacetime region. - Alexander Vilenkin

Alexander Vilenkin seems defines our universe as simply the expanding space-time region we occupy. William Lane Craig defines universe as all of physical reality. Obviously, the two definitions will lead to drastically different conclusions. We haven't even begun discussing the definitions for "begin to exist" or the different incompatible views of causality yet.

Here's to satisfy the need for defining the terms.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:41:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:01:54 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Do you want arguments that show the proposed arguments to be unsound,

Yes.

or that show that the proposed arguments with the conclusion "God exists", or "deities of some kind exist", are unsound?

If the conclusion satisfies what would be needed to argue for God.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana