Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kalam Cosmological Arguement

kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:11:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

P1: What ever does not begin to exist is uncaused
P2: God did not begin to exist.
C: God had no cause.

I believe this is what the Kalam suggests about the nature of god. P2 is unsupported (how can anyone know about the nature of god?) and the conclusion is unwarranted. The Kalam relies on special pleading to avoid infinite regression of god.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 5:33:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:11:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

P1: What ever does not begin to exist is uncaused
P2: God did not begin to exist.
C: God had no cause.

I believe this is what the Kalam suggests about the nature of god. P2 is unsupported (how can anyone know about the nature of god?) and the conclusion is unwarranted. The Kalam relies on special pleading to avoid infinite regression of god.

I agree with your point. Typically I hear people defend this point by saying that if the "creation" of the universe includes time and space, then its causer would have to be space less and timeless. While this is not satisfactory to me, it is an interesting appeal.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 5:43:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:33:26 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/20/2015 5:11:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

P1: What ever does not begin to exist is uncaused
P2: God did not begin to exist.
C: God had no cause.

I believe this is what the Kalam suggests about the nature of god. P2 is unsupported (how can anyone know about the nature of god?) and the conclusion is unwarranted. The Kalam relies on special pleading to avoid infinite regression of god.

I agree with your point. Typically I hear people defend this point by saying that if the "creation" of the universe includes time and space, then its causer would have to be space less and timeless. While this is not satisfactory to me, it is an interesting appeal.

Skeptic basically accuses the KCA of special pleading. A reformulation of the KCA escapes this:

P1. Everything that began to exist was caused externally prior to its existence
P2. The universe began to exist
C. Ergo, the universe was caused

The KCA's P1 anyways suggests the same thing. The special pleading accusation fails because, obviously, if the universe was caused, it had to have begun.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 7:38:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

This argument could possibly be disproved in two ways: Either the premises must be shown to be false, or it must be shown that the conclusion does not directly follow from the premises.
The first premise is slightly problematic, because causation requires time, and before the universe came into existence there was no time. This may make the premise invalid. I am however willing to accept this premise, because there might be a way to cause something without time.
The second premise is also not definitely true. While many theories believe that the universe started with the big bang, there are also theories that talk about the universe being in an endless loop. However, because there is no evidence for that theory yet, I am also willing to accept the second premise for argument's sake.

However, I don't see this as evidence for a god: If the premises are correct, the only correct conclusion would be that the universe has a cause. This cause could be anything, and in no way needs to be a sentient being, let alone a sentient being that actually cares about us, wants us to pray for him or creates a heaven for a few of us.

It seems much more probable that the first cause was something incredibly small and simple than that everything was caused by an infinitely complex being. To use this argument reminds me of the god of the gaps fallacy: Just because we don't know, doesn't mean that god is a good explanation.

Note: I am not a physicist. I may be making some terrible flaws with my physics. If so, please inform me. I'm always open to learning something new.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:14:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

1) Under the B-Theory of Time, P2 is false.
2) Under the A-Theory of Time there is an equivocation fallacy (P1 is supported by beginning to exist ex materia and P2 applies that to beginning to exist ex nihilo).

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:19:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

Even if we take his premises as true, the argument only points to a cause for existence, not any kind of intelligent creator, particularly the Abrahamic God or any other known deity.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:28:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

1. The argument you stated mentions nothing about God so it is completely insufficient to demonstrate a God's existence.

2. P1 is unsupported. The examples I have seen given for P1 involves cars, computers, or things of that nature beginning to exist. But here we are talking about matter and energy itself beginning to exist. This is a subject we really know nothing about so we can't say whether or not those things require a cause.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:58:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 7:38:16 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

This argument could possibly be disproved in two ways: Either the premises must be shown to be false, or it must be shown that the conclusion does not directly follow from the premises.
The first premise is slightly problematic, because causation requires time, and before the universe came into existence there was no time. This may make the premise invalid. I am however willing to accept this premise, because there might be a way to cause something without time.
The second premise is also not definitely true. While many theories believe that the universe started with the big bang, there are also theories that talk about the universe being in an endless loop. However, because there is no evidence for that theory yet, I am also willing to accept the second premise for argument's sake.

However, I don't see this as evidence for a god: If the premises are correct, the only correct conclusion would be that the universe has a cause. This cause could be anything, and in no way needs to be a sentient being, let alone a sentient being that actually cares about us, wants us to pray for him or creates a heaven for a few of us.

It seems much more probable that the first cause was something incredibly small and simple than that everything was caused by an infinitely complex being. To use this argument reminds me of the god of the gaps fallacy: Just because we don't know, doesn't mean that god is a good explanation.

Note: I am not a physicist. I may be making some terrible flaws with my physics. If so, please inform me. I'm always open to learning something new.

Exactly. Using the KCA as a proof for a god is essentially an argument from ignorance. Even if P1 & P2 are true, and the universe was caused to exist by something, there is no telling what that "something" was.... or is.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:17:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Logic is a created thing. How are you supposed to express the uncreated through creation?

The Truth is uncreated. The Truth will be there whether or not anyone or anything is there to observe it.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:26:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 9:17:52 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Logic is a created thing. How are you supposed to express the uncreated through creation?

The Truth is uncreated. The Truth will be there whether or not anyone or anything is there to observe it.

Do you have anything to back up those claims, or are you just spouting some fancy sounding words? Please try to expand and make a little more sense.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:29:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 9:26:05 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:17:52 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Logic is a created thing. How are you supposed to express the uncreated through creation?

The Truth is uncreated. The Truth will be there whether or not anyone or anything is there to observe it.

Do you have anything to back up those claims, or are you just spouting some fancy sounding words? Please try to expand and make a little more sense.

Do you believe that there is a truth independent of all bias? Better yet, do you understand what I mean by this?
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:36:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 9:29:21 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:26:05 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:17:52 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Logic is a created thing. How are you supposed to express the uncreated through creation?

The Truth is uncreated. The Truth will be there whether or not anyone or anything is there to observe it.

Do you have anything to back up those claims, or are you just spouting some fancy sounding words? Please try to expand and make a little more sense.

Do you believe that there is a truth independent of all bias? Better yet, do you understand what I mean by this?

I think I do. I consider myself a materialist, and think that everything is part of and made of physical things. These things are ruled by laws (laws of nature), and I would consider those to probably be a truth independent of all bias. This does of course not mean that we can ever know this truth.
Furthermore, there are of course things that are true because we made them true by definition (such as the statement that all bachelors are unmarried). I don't think that you were referring to that though.

Does that answer your question?
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:44:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 9:36:34 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:29:21 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:26:05 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:17:52 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Logic is a created thing. How are you supposed to express the uncreated through creation?

The Truth is uncreated. The Truth will be there whether or not anyone or anything is there to observe it.

Do you have anything to back up those claims, or are you just spouting some fancy sounding words? Please try to expand and make a little more sense.

Do you believe that there is a truth independent of all bias? Better yet, do you understand what I mean by this?

I think I do. I consider myself a materialist, and think that everything is part of and made of physical things. These things are ruled by laws (laws of nature), and I would consider those to probably be a truth independent of all bias. This does of course not mean that we can ever know this truth.
Furthermore, there are of course things that are true because we made them true by definition (such as the statement that all bachelors are unmarried). I don't think that you were referring to that though.

Does that answer your question?

The thing about the material world is that, we aren't dealing with reality itself, but representations of reality.

There isn't an instance in creation where 1=1 outside of representation.

People think that comparing apples to oranges is absurd, but comparing apples to apples is hard enough! No two apples are the same. No two atoms are the same.

These representations of reality are based on perceived utility, and have their uses. But it is fallacious to mistake the math we are using to represent reality for being reality itself.

A lot of people who mire around in logic aren't aware that the "is" of identity is inherently fallacious. Logic tends to be built off of this. Certainly, you can create an entire tree of logic off of faulty premises, and the result would be logical and rational, but that doesn't make it true.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:52:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?
First of all, I agree with SNP1 in that the B-Theory of time refutes the argument. It does so however by challenging both premises.
It is important to realize what is meant by "begins to exist":

e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t,
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists,
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

(iv) predicates the argument on the A-Theory (or at least presentism). Since the A-Theory is most likely false, neither did the universe begin to exist, nor did anything for the matter.
Skepticalone's complaints are actually dealt with under (iii), however I don't know how Craig supports that.
A further complaint mentioned here is that the argument at best concludes a cause of existence, not a disembodies mind. I am not sure how Craig would respond, but sofar I have just seen him asserting that "furthermore this cause has to be a spaceless, timeless being of imense power, it also has to be personal" (or something like that).
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 10:07:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 9:44:53 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:36:34 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:29:21 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:26:05 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:17:52 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Logic is a created thing. How are you supposed to express the uncreated through creation?

The Truth is uncreated. The Truth will be there whether or not anyone or anything is there to observe it.

Do you have anything to back up those claims, or are you just spouting some fancy sounding words? Please try to expand and make a little more sense.

Do you believe that there is a truth independent of all bias? Better yet, do you understand what I mean by this?

I think I do. I consider myself a materialist, and think that everything is part of and made of physical things. These things are ruled by laws (laws of nature), and I would consider those to probably be a truth independent of all bias. This does of course not mean that we can ever know this truth.
Furthermore, there are of course things that are true because we made them true by definition (such as the statement that all bachelors are unmarried). I don't think that you were referring to that though.

Does that answer your question?

The thing about the material world is that, we aren't dealing with reality itself, but representations of reality.

There isn't an instance in creation where 1=1 outside of representation.

People think that comparing apples to oranges is absurd, but comparing apples to apples is hard enough! No two apples are the same. No two atoms are the same.

These representations of reality are based on perceived utility, and have their uses. But it is fallacious to mistake the math we are using to represent reality for being reality itself.

A lot of people who mire around in logic aren't aware that the "is" of identity is inherently fallacious. Logic tends to be built off of this. Certainly, you can create an entire tree of logic off of faulty premises, and the result would be logical and rational, but that doesn't make it true.

What you wrote sounded very fancy, but I think that you are simply wrong. The material world is reality itself. There is no reality outside the material world (I take this position because there has never been proof of a supernatural world). There are plenty of things that are the same in reality: two water molecules will always have 2 hydrogen and one oxygen molecule. Maybe these can still differ slightly, but as soon as you get to the fundamental particles they are probably exactly the same.

You also said that math does not represent reality. That may be true in some instances, but I don't think you'd argue that if I take one real world apple and one othee real world you have two real world apples. Math does apply to the real world.

Finally, you are right that all of what I am saying is based on the assumption that what we observe is real. I know I could be in a computer simulation right now for instance. However, I think that the only sensible position is to assume that what we observe is real.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 10:28:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 10:07:37 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:44:53 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:36:34 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:29:21 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:26:05 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 9:17:52 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Logic is a created thing. How are you supposed to express the uncreated through creation?

The Truth is uncreated. The Truth will be there whether or not anyone or anything is there to observe it.

Do you have anything to back up those claims, or are you just spouting some fancy sounding words? Please try to expand and make a little more sense.

Do you believe that there is a truth independent of all bias? Better yet, do you understand what I mean by this?

I think I do. I consider myself a materialist, and think that everything is part of and made of physical things. These things are ruled by laws (laws of nature), and I would consider those to probably be a truth independent of all bias. This does of course not mean that we can ever know this truth.
Furthermore, there are of course things that are true because we made them true by definition (such as the statement that all bachelors are unmarried). I don't think that you were referring to that though.

Does that answer your question?

The thing about the material world is that, we aren't dealing with reality itself, but representations of reality.

There isn't an instance in creation where 1=1 outside of representation.

People think that comparing apples to oranges is absurd, but comparing apples to apples is hard enough! No two apples are the same. No two atoms are the same.

These representations of reality are based on perceived utility, and have their uses. But it is fallacious to mistake the math we are using to represent reality for being reality itself.

A lot of people who mire around in logic aren't aware that the "is" of identity is inherently fallacious. Logic tends to be built off of this. Certainly, you can create an entire tree of logic off of faulty premises, and the result would be logical and rational, but that doesn't make it true.

What you wrote sounded very fancy, but I think that you are simply wrong. The material world is reality itself. There is no reality outside the material world (I take this position because there has never been proof of a supernatural world). There are plenty of things that are the same in reality: two water molecules will always have 2 hydrogen and one oxygen molecule. Maybe these can still differ slightly, but as soon as you get to the fundamental particles they are probably exactly the same.

You also said that math does not represent reality. That may be true in some instances, but I don't think you'd argue that if I take one real world apple and one othee real world you have two real world apples. Math does apply to the real world.

No, math DOES represent reality. However, it ISN'T reality. Don't think that I'm trying to belittle the utility of using our perception of the world to navigate it.

Finally, you are right that all of what I am saying is based on the assumption that what we observe is real. I know I could be in a computer simulation right now for instance. However, I think that the only sensible position is to assume that what we observe is real.

When you take into account the tool that is being used to measure, it becomes very clear that the way we perceive the world is not entirely accurate. A great deal of it is fabrication based on perceived utility.

If you have two apples, certainly you have two apples. Even though the apples are not exactly the same, you have two apples. An "apple" is a discriminatory grid we place around a perception of reality in order to make sense of the world. There are two "apples", but the "apple" in itself is a representation.

In truth, there is no such thing as an "apple". "Apple" is something that meets predefined criteria, or attributes which are also based on predefined criteria.

The human experience is heavily burdened on duality. We can not make sense of anything without comparing it to something else.

The correct understanding of Monotheism is non-dualistic. That which is True independent of bias has nothing to compare to, it is wholly sufficient and beyond words. It is what it is, and it doesn't require anything else to compare to in order to stand.

However, words can only point to it. The word "truth" requires the opposite, "falsehood" in order to stand and have meaning. Truth in the most absolute sense transcends duality, and requires nothing to stand on.

The natural world requires duality in order to stand. It is all relativistic. In this sense, God represents what is truly supernatural. Due to having no division, nothing to compare it to, not being time bound, not being subject to physics, being what is truly objective and beyond relativity, it is "supernatural".
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 10:55:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 10:28:52 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:

No, math DOES represent reality. However, it ISN'T reality. Don't think that I'm trying to belittle the utility of using our perception of the world to navigate it.

I agree that math is purely a mental representation of reality. Reality itself consists of the particles that math might be able to describe (and all other particles that math might not be able to describe)


When you take into account the tool that is being used to measure, it becomes very clear that the way we perceive the world is not entirely accurate. A great deal of it is fabrication based on perceived utility.
That is also very true. Our observations are imperfect, and we know very little of this world.

If you have two apples, certainly you have two apples. Even though the apples are not exactly the same, you have two apples. An "apple" is a discriminatory grid we place around a perception of reality in order to make sense of the world. There are two "apples", but the "apple" in itself is a representation.
That is true, but that was just my argument to explain how math is applicable to real life. It turns out we seem to agree on that, so there's no need for further discussion on that topic.

In truth, there is no such thing as an "apple". "Apple" is something that meets predefined criteria, or attributes which are also based on predefined criteria.
Once again, not really important to me anymore.

The human experience is heavily burdened on duality. We can not make sense of anything without comparing it to something else.

The correct understanding of Monotheism is non-dualistic. That which is True independent of bias has nothing to compare to, it is wholly sufficient and beyond words. It is what it is, and it doesn't require anything else to compare to in order to stand.
That is not true. We are very well capable of making sense of things without comparing them. I can't compare evolution to anything, and I can still understand it. I can understand how some types of atoms can interact to form complex molecules without comparing them to anything, etcetera. It's true that we really like comparing things to clarify them, but that doesn't mean that we always need it. Furthermore, monotheism is very dualistic: People compare god to people, and make the two very similar. You also just randomly stated that monotheism is true, just because it doesn't require any other explanation. That to me sounds like nonsense. Monotheism is probably not true, because it lacks any evidence.

However, words can only point to it. The word "truth" requires the opposite, "falsehood" in order to stand and have meaning. Truth in the most absolute sense transcends duality, and requires nothing to stand on.

The natural world requires duality in order to stand. It is all relativistic. In this sense, God represents what is truly supernatural. Due to having no division, nothing to compare it to, not being time bound, not being subject to physics, being what is truly objective and beyond relativity, it is "supernatural".
Once again, god doesn't exist. You haven't given me a single argument why I should asusme that there is a supernatural being that has no division, nothing to compare it to, not being time bound, not being subject to physics, being what is truly objective and beyond relativity. To me it still seems very well possible (and very likely) that everything is real and natural. The universe came to exist naturally and it will come to an end naturally.

All in all, you seem to make a lot of sense, until you bring God in. Your arguments only stand with the assumption that God exists, and that assumption is unsubstantiated.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:08:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:

*argument

Let me rephrase the argument:

P1: Everything that began to exist has/had an external cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C1: The universe was caused via an external cause
P3: If the universe had an external cause, the cause is God (due to Craig's ontological analysis that presents a mind as a timeless/spaceless entity)
P4: The universe was caused via an external cause (C1)
C2: God is the cause of the universe

P1

Fails because the sole justification is a posteriori justification, thus committing fallacy of composition, since attributes of sum of parts =/= attributes of whole[https://en.wikipedia.org...], and hasty generalization, since we only know causality is verified within the *observable* universe[https://en.wikipedia.org...].

P1 also fails since simultaneous causality is the only possible causality for the universe, since causality has to assume temporal passage otherwise, which means ontological analysis of the cause's attributes entailing God fails, since SC could allow for the universe to cause itself.

P2

P2 has to assume a Presentism ontology of time and the A-theory of time.[http://plato.stanford.edu...] The former fails because of special relativity and relativity of simultaneity, where planes of simultaneity differing with vast changes in movement result in four dimensions. What Fkkize said fits.

The second premise also assumes classical relativity, which fails due to quantum gravity and quantum field theory.

P3

1) Assumes minds are non-physical
2) Assumes substance dualism
3) Assumes minds can be atemporal

#1 -- God is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, and a mind is considered to be the same
#2 -- Since it asserts that minds are timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, meaning it has no interaction with the Higgs field and cannot be with spatial or temporal constraint, meaning minds cannot be due to or products of a brain; there is also an established distinction between the physical universe and the mind
#3 -- By statement of ontological analysis, which is dubious since minds require temporal processes, at least by our current understanding of the 'mind'

P4

Refuted by my refutations to P1 and P2.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:08:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 10:55:04 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
All in all, you seem to make a lot of sense, until you bring God in. Your arguments only stand with the assumption that God exists, and that assumption is unsubstantiated.

God by definition exists.

God is supposed to represent "The Ultimate Reality".

The word has an awful lot of baggage attached to it these days, but that is what the concept is supposed to represent.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:18:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:08:58 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 10:55:04 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
All in all, you seem to make a lot of sense, until you bring God in. Your arguments only stand with the assumption that God exists, and that assumption is unsubstantiated.

God by definition exists.

God is supposed to represent "The Ultimate Reality".

The word has an awful lot of baggage attached to it these days, but that is what the concept is supposed to represent.

You have two different definitions of god. Your first definition is that god has no division, nothing to compare it to, is not time bound, not subject to physics, and truly objective and beyond relativity

Your second definition is simply that god is the ultimate reality.

Those two things are not the same, or at least not definitely so. I see absolutely no reason to assume that reality has no division (as far as we know, it might very well be finite), it might be time bound (it may have had a beginning at the big bang) and is completely subject to physics.

I agree that reality exists. However, I don't agree with your definition of reality because it's unsubstantiated.

(And a personal god is even more unlikely, never mind a personal god that actually cares about us)
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:28:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:18:08 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:08:58 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 10:55:04 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
All in all, you seem to make a lot of sense, until you bring God in. Your arguments only stand with the assumption that God exists, and that assumption is unsubstantiated.

God by definition exists.

God is supposed to represent "The Ultimate Reality".

The word has an awful lot of baggage attached to it these days, but that is what the concept is supposed to represent.

You have two different definitions of god. Your first definition is that god has no division, nothing to compare it to, is not time bound, not subject to physics, and truly objective and beyond relativity

Your second definition is simply that god is the ultimate reality.

Those two things are not the same, or at least not definitely so. I see absolutely no reason to assume that reality has no division (as far as we know, it might very well be finite), it might be time bound (it may have had a beginning at the big bang) and is completely subject to physics.

I agree that reality exists. However, I don't agree with your definition of reality because it's unsubstantiated.

(And a personal god is even more unlikely, never mind a personal god that actually cares about us)

You have a personal experience, don't you? You have this perception of a self correct? God is very personal.

Though you are right, God can not be adequately defined. It is something that is beyond abstraction, indescribable. Concepts and words only point to it, the source of all things.

I'm just telling you, from the theological understand, what the concept is supposed to represent.

If you understand math, the best mathematical representation of the concept is probably described in Bell's Theorem. It deals with things like quantum entanglement and mathematically demonstrates how everything literally effects everything else instantaneously faster than light, and in a way that abolishes traditional understandings of the nature of causality.

It is widely respected in physics, and in my opinion of the most profound discoveries of the last century.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 12:46:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 11:28:37 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:18:08 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
At 7/21/2015 11:08:58 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 10:55:04 AM, Talkingisfun wrote:
All in all, you seem to make a lot of sense, until you bring God in. Your arguments only stand with the assumption that God exists, and that assumption is unsubstantiated.

God by definition exists.

God is supposed to represent "The Ultimate Reality".

The word has an awful lot of baggage attached to it these days, but that is what the concept is supposed to represent.

You have two different definitions of god. Your first definition is that god has no division, nothing to compare it to, is not time bound, not subject to physics, and truly objective and beyond relativity

Your second definition is simply that god is the ultimate reality.

Those two things are not the same, or at least not definitely so. I see absolutely no reason to assume that reality has no division (as far as we know, it might very well be finite), it might be time bound (it may have had a beginning at the big bang) and is completely subject to physics.

I agree that reality exists. However, I don't agree with your definition of reality because it's unsubstantiated.

(And a personal god is even more unlikely, never mind a personal god that actually cares about us)

You have a personal experience, don't you? You have this perception of a self correct? God is very personal.

Though you are right, God can not be adequately defined. It is something that is beyond abstraction, indescribable. Concepts and words only point to it, the source of all things.

I'm just telling you, from the theological understand, what the concept is supposed to represent.

If you understand math, the best mathematical representation of the concept is probably described in Bell's Theorem. It deals with things like quantum entanglement and mathematically demonstrates how everything literally effects everything else instantaneously faster than light, and in a way that abolishes traditional understandings of the nature of causality.

It is widely respected in physics, and in my opinion of the most profound discoveries of the last century.

Once again, you haven't given any proof for a personal god. You just state that god is personal as if it is a fact. Reality might just be. There doesn't have to be any thought behind it. It can be random. It could just exist because it exists or because of some natural phenomenon that created it. There is exactly 0 evidence for a personal god, and even have evidence that if there is a personal god, he doesn't care for us.

PS: I won't go into Bell's theorem, because quite frankly, I don't think I understand it well enough to argue about it coherently. I agree that it's fascinating, but my highschool physics are not sufficient to make me understand it.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 1:21:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's not my favourite cosmological argument; I don't like to use it in debates because it pretty much always devolves into an A-theory vs B-theory debate. Since I'm not that knowledgable of the philosophy of time, I prefer to avoid engaging the subject in a debate.

I personally prefer my contingency cosmological argument.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 1:30:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 12:46:54 PM, Talkingisfun wrote:

Once again, you haven't given any proof for a personal god. You just state that god is personal as if it is a fact. Reality might just be. There doesn't have to be any thought behind it. It can be random. It could just exist because it exists or because of some natural phenomenon that created it. There is exactly 0 evidence for a personal god, and even have evidence that if there is a personal god, he doesn't care for us.

You experience the world from your own personal view. God is speaking to you very personally.

God is personal in the sense that your experience is unique.

This is undeniable proof for God being personal, if you understand it.

There is One Ultimate Reality, but there are many little realities. You are experiencing a little reality.

Does God love you? Look at all the gifts beyond measure that you have been given! You have with you gifts that are priceless. You couldn't put a monetary value on the experience you are having just at this very moment.

Certainly, there is suffering in this world, but these are forms of correction that God uses to put us on the straight path. This is what a loving father does for their child.

Yet, all of these are human ways of thinking. Realize that they point to something greater.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Talkingisfun
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 2:10:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 1:30:27 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/21/2015 12:46:54 PM, Talkingisfun wrote:

Once again, you haven't given any proof for a personal god. You just state that god is personal as if it is a fact. Reality might just be. There doesn't have to be any thought behind it. It can be random. It could just exist because it exists or because of some natural phenomenon that created it. There is exactly 0 evidence for a personal god, and even have evidence that if there is a personal god, he doesn't care for us.

You experience the world from your own personal view. God is speaking to you very personally.

God is personal in the sense that your experience is unique.

This is undeniable proof for God being personal, if you understand it.

There is One Ultimate Reality, but there are many little realities. You are experiencing a little reality.

Does God love you? Look at all the gifts beyond measure that you have been given! You have with you gifts that are priceless. You couldn't put a monetary value on the experience you are having just at this very moment.

Certainly, there is suffering in this world, but these are forms of correction that God uses to put us on the straight path. This is what a loving father does for their child.

Yet, all of these are human ways of thinking. Realize that they point to something greater.

An argument from personal experience. There are very few arguments that are less relevant. People have given similar arguments for alien abductions, ghosts and other nonsense.

The 'gifts that we have been given' have been given to us by loads of things, such as evolution and the laws of nature. There is no indication that any god played any part in it.

Furthermore, would a loving all powerful god give kids cancer? Would he allow the massive inequality we have now? Would he allow thousands of people to die in natural disasters? I sincerely doubt it. A loving father won't kill of a few of his children randomly, nor would he allow some of them to be incredibly rich and get whatever they want, and some others to literally die of hunger.
"Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught"
-Winston Churchill
ReformedPresbyterian72598
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 7:22:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Like the video said, it reasonable to conclude so based on the argument. As far as is being sufficient proof for a person, I would say that it depends on wether or not they believe it. It is either God does exist, or He doesn't. You must believe it.
Again, the argument allows us to conclude that it is reasonable that God does exist. However, it is not the actual proof He does. Like many atheists I've encountered, they could say, and deny, that God does not exist. Saying God does exist is not a fact, though, as in the argument, it "begs the question" if you will. There's a, in my opinion, metaphysical gap that one must cross to know that He does. As I said before you either believe it, or you do not. But one is right and the other wrong; it can't be both.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 7:35:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

If the universe had a cause that does not automatically mean that god did it.

Lots of things could have happened to cause the big bang, god being the least likely.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:18:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:11:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

P1: What ever does not begin to exist is uncaused
P2: God did not begin to exist.
C: God had no cause.

I believe this is what the Kalam suggests about the nature of god. P2 is unsupported (how can anyone know about the nature of god?) and the conclusion is unwarranted. The Kalam relies on special pleading to avoid infinite regression of god.

Any Christian would agree... God had no cause.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 10:00:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 8:18:28 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 7/20/2015 5:11:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/20/2015 2:59:04 PM, kasmic wrote:
I have seen many talk about the KCA in God debates. For those who don't know what this is, it goes as follows....

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

Here is a short video for more info on it.
https://www.youtube.com...

I am curious what you think

Theist's is this sufficient prove God's existence?

Atheists how do you respond to this contention?

P1: What ever does not begin to exist is uncaused
P2: God did not begin to exist.
C: God had no cause.

I believe this is what the Kalam suggests about the nature of god. P2 is unsupported (how can anyone know about the nature of god?) and the conclusion is unwarranted. The Kalam relies on special pleading to avoid infinite regression of god.


Any Christian would agree... God had no cause.

Yes, of course they would - The syllogism was meant to properly represent the argument of theists. The problem is that this explanation of God is special pleading.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten