Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Kalam Cosmological Argument

SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:11:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which William Lane Craig is a main proponent of, presupposes the A-Theory of Time.

Physics supports the B-Theory of Time and even shows that the A-Theory of Time is unlikely.

How many theists, who are proponents of the KCA, can defend the A-Theory of Time or show how the KCA works under the B-Theory of Time?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:55:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.

Under the A-Theory of Time either:
1) Only the present exists
2) Only the past and present exist

The future does no exist under the A-Theory of Time. How can A theorists accept retrocausality (which confirms that there is a future)?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:56:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:55:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.

Under the A-Theory of Time either:
1) Only the present exists
2) Only the past and present exist

The future does no exist under the A-Theory of Time. How can A theorists accept retrocausality (which confirms that there is a future)?

Because it's an eternalist theory and an A theory of time. It accepts the past, present and future exists, but states time is still tensed.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:05:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:56:33 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:55:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.

Under the A-Theory of Time either:
1) Only the present exists
2) Only the past and present exist

The future does no exist under the A-Theory of Time. How can A theorists accept retrocausality (which confirms that there is a future)?

Because it's an eternalist theory and an A theory of time. It accepts the past, present and future exists, but states time is still tensed.

I have never seen a model of the A-Theory of Time that includes the future. I also have not seen any model that has the past, present, and future that is still tensed.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:13:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:55:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.

Under the A-Theory of Time either:
1) Only the present exists
2) Only the past and present exist

The future does no exist under the A-Theory of Time. How can A theorists accept retrocausality (which confirms that there is a future)?

Reterocausality is an interpretation-dependant observation of quantum mechanics mind you. Special relativity makes a much more convincing case for eternalism in my opinion, since the interpretation of relativity vastly supersedes any other interpretation (such as the neo-lorentzian view) and makes very few, and completely verifiable assumptions:

1. The Laws of Physics are uniform across spacetime
2. Speed of light is absolutely constant

Other views, require additional assumptions, and do not leads to predictions in other fields such as quantum electrodynamics, etc. that are obtained if one accepts the 'classical' special relativity interpretation.

Thus, in my opinion, arguments from relativity are much more convincing in demonstrating eternalism. Personally I think this also strongly implies B-theory of time, but as n7 states, it's always possible to come up with alternative explanations (alternatives roulette...).
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:16:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Swith the premise "the universe began to exist" with "the Big Bang began to exist" and the argument is valid under both the A and B theory of time.
SebUK
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:25:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The kca assumes that the same laws that apply in the universe now applied before the universe which is my main problem with it.
I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:30:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

I haven't seen any good experiments for retrocausality. Could you give an example and explain what the retrocausality is?

I think relativity plays a big role in understanding why one observer is in the past and another in the future. Because of this a super observer would see all of time as static finite and defined, while observers moving with energy inside the universe are in the same reference frame and experience the present, not knowing what the "future" holds.

http://www.newscientist.com...

I think the dispersion of energy and quantum scale entanglements creates the passage of time.

I think the past is gone and recorded no where. Once the energy is moving it is the present. Each present being the collapse of possible futures. The only way the past exists is as an illusion like a mirage, caused by mechanisms like the one in the link.

I think such a universe would account for the nature of God.

I think the B-theory is still compliant with God, because for the energy to disperse and move there has to be an imbalance. if the singularity at the beginning of the universe was homogenous and temporally frozen, then there would be no imbalance sufficient enough to cause microstates in different relative locations, state, and tense.

I see no contradiction in freewill and omniscience existing at the same time, present in the same events.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:38:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:05:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:56:33 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:55:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.

Under the A-Theory of Time either:
1) Only the present exists
2) Only the past and present exist

The future does no exist under the A-Theory of Time. How can A theorists accept retrocausality (which confirms that there is a future)?

Because it's an eternalist theory and an A theory of time. It accepts the past, present and future exists, but states time is still tensed.

I have never seen a model of the A-Theory of Time that includes the future. I also have not seen any model that has the past, present, and future that is still tensed.
There's no contradiction in it. It's Charlie Dunbar Broad's model. The moving spotlight theory
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:49:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This discussion, thus far, has succeeded in making me dizzy. Each time I make the mistake of reading through one of these, I end up spending a ton of time in some internet library, or at the local university trying to learn enough to understand it all.

A pox on all of you.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:21:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:49:37 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
This discussion, thus far, has succeeded in making me dizzy. Each time I make the mistake of reading through one of these, I end up spending a ton of time in some internet library, or at the local university trying to learn enough to understand it all.

A pox on all of you.

A pox on us for having an intelligent discussion in the Religion Forums?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:32:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:16:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Swith the premise "the universe began to exist" with "the Big Bang began to exist" and the argument is valid under both the A and B theory of time.

Not true.
What is the "universe"?

What is the "Big Bang"?

Depending on the perspective (which time theory) and the definitions, the statements might be different, meaning the argument would not be valid under both.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:45:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:38:26 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:05:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:56:33 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:55:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.

Under the A-Theory of Time either:
1) Only the present exists
2) Only the past and present exist

The future does no exist under the A-Theory of Time. How can A theorists accept retrocausality (which confirms that there is a future)?

Because it's an eternalist theory and an A theory of time. It accepts the past, present and future exists, but states time is still tensed.

I have never seen a model of the A-Theory of Time that includes the future. I also have not seen any model that has the past, present, and future that is still tensed.
There's no contradiction in it. It's Charlie Dunbar Broad's model. The moving spotlight theory

Do you advocate for this philosophy? Perhaps we finally have something we can debate....
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:58:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:45:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:38:26 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:05:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:56:33 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:55:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.

Under the A-Theory of Time either:
1) Only the present exists
2) Only the past and present exist

The future does no exist under the A-Theory of Time. How can A theorists accept retrocausality (which confirms that there is a future)?

Because it's an eternalist theory and an A theory of time. It accepts the past, present and future exists, but states time is still tensed.

I have never seen a model of the A-Theory of Time that includes the future. I also have not seen any model that has the past, present, and future that is still tensed.
There's no contradiction in it. It's Charlie Dunbar Broad's model. The moving spotlight theory

Do you advocate for this philosophy? Perhaps we finally have something we can debate....

Not necessarily. I like eternalism, however if there really is an objective present, I don't know.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:02:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:58:17 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:45:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:38:26 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:05:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:56:33 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:55:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.

Under the A-Theory of Time either:
1) Only the present exists
2) Only the past and present exist

The future does no exist under the A-Theory of Time. How can A theorists accept retrocausality (which confirms that there is a future)?

Because it's an eternalist theory and an A theory of time. It accepts the past, present and future exists, but states time is still tensed.

I have never seen a model of the A-Theory of Time that includes the future. I also have not seen any model that has the past, present, and future that is still tensed.
There's no contradiction in it. It's Charlie Dunbar Broad's model. The moving spotlight theory

Do you advocate for this philosophy? Perhaps we finally have something we can debate....

Not necessarily. I like eternalism, however if there really is an objective present, I don't know.

Damn... Perhaps debate me on solipsism then....
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:14:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:21:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:49:37 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
This discussion, thus far, has succeeded in making me dizzy. Each time I make the mistake of reading through one of these, I end up spending a ton of time in some internet library, or at the local university trying to learn enough to understand it all.

A pox on all of you.

A pox on us for having an intelligent discussion in the Religion Forums?

Of course not. It was posted tongue in cheek.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:27:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:02:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:58:17 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:45:45 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:38:26 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:05:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:56:33 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:55:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

There are A theories of time which accept retrocausality.

Under the A-Theory of Time either:
1) Only the present exists
2) Only the past and present exist

The future does no exist under the A-Theory of Time. How can A theorists accept retrocausality (which confirms that there is a future)?

Because it's an eternalist theory and an A theory of time. It accepts the past, present and future exists, but states time is still tensed.

I have never seen a model of the A-Theory of Time that includes the future. I also have not seen any model that has the past, present, and future that is still tensed.
There's no contradiction in it. It's Charlie Dunbar Broad's model. The moving spotlight theory

Do you advocate for this philosophy? Perhaps we finally have something we can debate....

Not necessarily. I like eternalism, however if there really is an objective present, I don't know.

Damn... Perhaps debate me on solipsism then....

Haha it would be pretty hard to present a knock down argument against it, but I'm up if BOP is on you.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:22:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Personally, I prefer to highlight the equivocation on 'beginning', which needs to be defined in exactly the same way for both premises for the argument to be valid, and to attack the first premise.

B-Theory of time only addresses a very specific definition of 'beginning' which is that the origin of the universe is a tensed fact (one of WLC's definitions). It also runs into insurmountable problems against eternalism (regardless of a or b series) since the beginning of the universe itself is no longer logically equivilent to the beginning of anything within the universe.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:37:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:52:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:50:06 PM, n7 wrote:
Physics doesn't necessarily support the B theory of time. It supports eternalism, which while still hurts the KCA, can still technically fall under the category of an A theory of time.

Retrocausality confirms that the future exists (which falsifies the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time).

Retrocausality is just an experimental construct. There's no evidence it actually exists in the real world.

Atheism of the gaps here folks.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:15:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:11:03 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which William Lane Craig is a main proponent of, presupposes the A-Theory of Time.

Physics supports the B-Theory of Time and even shows that the A-Theory of Time is unlikely.

How many theists, who are proponents of the KCA, can defend the A-Theory of Time or show how the KCA works under the B-Theory of Time?

Alright, I believe I've looked into this enough to have a decent grasp of it. I would like to push past the A-Theory, B-Theory mumbo jumbo and try to apply some simple common sense.

Approaching this as a theist. If God is everlasting to everlasting, infinite, uncreated, without beginning or end, then where was he before the so-called "beginning"?

How can God exist without existence existing? If existence has always been, and always will be, then there is no beginning. Sure, there can be temporal occurrences within the infinite, like the coming and going of a universe here and there, but the infinity of existence remains static.

If I'm getting it right, then in it's attempt to prove God exists, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.