Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 2:12:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am convinced that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a very good argument. I would like a Theist who believes that it is a good argument, to defend it in a debate. If anyone is interested, then please take me up on my challenge:

http://www.debate.org...
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 5:36:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, it is true that at first glance it seems as if there is something missing to the KCA, like how does this arguments even suggests there is a God, but it happens that the Universe is the place where everything needs a cause in order to happen, but when it comes the beginning of the universe itself you necessarily need an uncaused cause, and that uncaused cause need to be able to start a universe and give it its rules (including the rule that is : everything that begins to exist has a cause) from this you conclude that the cause needs to be sentient, uncaused, able and free willed, that we agree to call God.

So the missing part is some analyse rather that an additional premise.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 5:50:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 5:36:04 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Well, it is true that at first glance it seems as if there is something missing to the KCA, like how does this arguments even suggests there is a God, but it happens that the Universe is the place where everything needs a cause

Prove it. Debate me.

in order to happen, but when it comes the beginning of the universe itself you necessarily need an uncaused cause

Why do you necessarily need an uncaused cause? I disagree. Why don't you debate me on this?

, and that uncaused cause need to be able to start a universe and give it its rules (including the rule that is : everything that begins to exist has a cause)

That rule is invented by humans.

from this you conclude that the cause needs to be sentient, uncaused, able and free willed, that we agree to call God.

There is no good reason why the cause has to be sentient. Debate me.

So the missing part is some analyse rather that an additional premise.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 6:10:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 6:03:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2013 6:01:54 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Ok I shall!

Awesome. Present your case for the KCA in the first round!

Ok got it, pray for me :P
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 7:49:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 2:12:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I am convinced that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a very good argument. I would like a Theist who believes that it is a good argument, to defend it in a debate. If anyone is interested, then please take me up on my challenge:

http://www.debate.org...

You have given your opponent a very high burden of proof, requiring them to prove it is sound beyond a reasonable doubt.
"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
6/19/2013 7:52:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 7:49:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2013 2:12:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I am convinced that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a very good argument. I would like a Theist who believes that it is a good argument, to defend it in a debate. If anyone is interested, then please take me up on my challenge:

http://www.debate.org...

You have given your opponent a very high burden of proof, requiring them to prove it is sound beyond a reasonable doubt.

How is that a high burden of proof? They simply have the burden of proof to establish the conclusion like any other debate.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 10:44:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 7:52:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2013 7:49:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2013 2:12:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I am convinced that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a very good argument. I would like a Theist who believes that it is a good argument, to defend it in a debate. If anyone is interested, then please take me up on my challenge:

http://www.debate.org...

You have given your opponent a very high burden of proof, requiring them to prove it is sound beyond a reasonable doubt.

How is that a high burden of proof? They simply have the burden of proof to establish the conclusion like any other debate.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a higher burden of proof than "more likely than not." After all, a person can make the case that a point of view is more likely than not even if it is not unreasonable to doubt it.
"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
6/19/2013 11:34:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 10:44:22 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2013 7:52:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2013 7:49:09 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/19/2013 2:12:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I am convinced that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a very good argument. I would like a Theist who believes that it is a good argument, to defend it in a debate. If anyone is interested, then please take me up on my challenge:

http://www.debate.org...

You have given your opponent a very high burden of proof, requiring them to prove it is sound beyond a reasonable doubt.

How is that a high burden of proof? They simply have the burden of proof to establish the conclusion like any other debate.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a higher burden of proof than "more likely than not." After all, a person can make the case that a point of view is more likely than not even if it is not unreasonable to doubt it.

"More likely than not" is too weak of a burden of proof. If someone says x has a 51% chance of happening, and y has a 49% chance of happening, which is more likely? Well, x is more likely than y. However, simply because it is more likely does not establish x in any meaningful sense.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 11:49:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Substantially more likely" would perhaps suffice, but even then...

"A deductively valid moral argument based on even say five basic premises with an 80% probability of truth each, produces a conclusion that has 68% probability of being false, given just those premises." - Stephen Law
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2013 11:58:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, and the KCA is one arguing for necessity, intended to be a "slam-dunk" showing how God is utterly required.

If all you can do is prove "possible necessity" you haven't proven much. If we have a reasonable doubt on the argument, then we have a reasonable doubt on the existence of God, which means the KCA establishes pretty much nothing.

Of course, I also think the KCA is nonsense.
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
6/20/2013 12:06:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2013 11:58:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Well, and the KCA is one arguing for necessity, intended to be a "slam-dunk" showing how God is utterly required.

If all you can do is prove "possible necessity" you haven't proven much. If we have a reasonable doubt on the argument, then we have a reasonable doubt on the existence of God, which means the KCA establishes pretty much nothing.

You made a good point. If the first premise is based on a necessary metaphysical law, and the second is based on the logically incoherence of its negation, then the theist should be able to establish the conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt with relative ease if they think it is sound. The terms to the debate seem more than reasonable to me. However, it is possible that I am missing something.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 12:03:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:06:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2013 11:58:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Well, and the KCA is one arguing for necessity, intended to be a "slam-dunk" showing how God is utterly required.

If all you can do is prove "possible necessity" you haven't proven much. If we have a reasonable doubt on the argument, then we have a reasonable doubt on the existence of God, which means the KCA establishes pretty much nothing.


You made a good point. If the first premise is based on a necessary metaphysical law, and the second is based on the logically incoherence of its negation, then the theist should be able to establish the conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt with relative ease if they think it is sound. The terms to the debate seem more than reasonable to me. However, it is possible that I am missing something.

Something can be metaphysically or logically necessary even if an individual is epistemologically uncertain about it. That's the mistake I think you and bladerunner are making.
"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
6/20/2013 12:18:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:03:57 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/20/2013 12:06:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2013 11:58:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Well, and the KCA is one arguing for necessity, intended to be a "slam-dunk" showing how God is utterly required.

If all you can do is prove "possible necessity" you haven't proven much. If we have a reasonable doubt on the argument, then we have a reasonable doubt on the existence of God, which means the KCA establishes pretty much nothing.


You made a good point. If the first premise is based on a necessary metaphysical law, and the second is based on the logically incoherence of its negation, then the theist should be able to establish the conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt with relative ease if they think it is sound. The terms to the debate seem more than reasonable to me. However, it is possible that I am missing something.

Something can be metaphysically or logically necessary even if an individual is epistemologically uncertain about it. That's the mistake I think you and bladerunner are making.

Not reasonably epistemologically uncertain about it though. That's the mistake I think you are making.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2013 12:48:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/20/2013 12:03:57 PM, philochristos wrote:

Something can be metaphysically or logically necessary even if an individual is epistemologically uncertain about it. That's the mistake I think you and bladerunner are making.

No, it cannot, not when we're talking about what is actually real.

One can construct an argument about metaphysical or logical necessity that is valid. But for it to be sound requires the premises to be true.

For it to be a sound argument for necessity, for it to be something which is necessarily true in our world, you can't be epistemologically uncertain about anything, because once you are the necessity goes away.

All zips are zaps, and all zaps are zeps. Therefore, by necessity, all zips are zeps. But if we aren't sure that all zips are zaps, or that all zaps are zeps, or even that zips, zaps, or zeps even exist, then we can no longer say that it's necessarily so that all zips are zeps anywhere but within the argument that may be meaningless.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!