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

God is not the only possibility for Kalam

Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 10:51:47 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
God is not the only possibility for Kalam cosmological arguement. According to wikipedia, Sir Wiliam Craig is an outspoken defender of the arguement. I will go with the way he argues (and you can propose they way you wanna argue and we will examine whether you propose works or not). so, I am citing wikipedia:
Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:[3]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:[4]

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:

"... transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."
End quote.

now, Craig argues "whatever began to exist has a cause" e.g: caused by someone or something. I agree with this premise, unless something/someone was caused by something/someone that can not come to existence.
"universe began to exist, so it has a cause" agree. no arguement for that. BUT:

Craig or wiki (or both) says "If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
"

here is a flaw or a problem. while it can be true, there are other possibilities as well. just because universe has a cause does not mean its cause is God, someone/something that is uncaused, eternal, omnipotent and e.t.c. It may be. now, other options:

Our planet is a part of galaxy which is a part of universe. considering the way our galaxy and planet started to exist with a cause that was caused with the operations that run in our universe, our universe too can be a part of a larger system that includes universes. it is possible. what if our universe is part of a system which includes many universes. let us say the name of that system is "Nuniverse". this is possible, considering it is possible, Calam Kosmological arguement does not prove the existence of God. It might have been caused by someone or something that is not God. it is assumed, predicted that a large asteroid crushed the earth and hence moon started to exist as a seperate cosmic thing. universe too might have been caused by such plight.
theists may/will say "if that Nuniverse caused the universe to begin to exist, then God caused the Nuniverse, if you say Nuniverse is created by Funiverse it goes till infinity, which means it will require uncaused Creator, God. so god exists is proven."
ok, first of all, Kalam Cosmological arguement uses the universe, and uses god as the one who caused it. since universe might have been caused by the plight mentioned above is possible,the arguement is dead. but we will go on again:
if universe is caused by Nuniverse, is god the only possible creator of Nuniverse? No.
first let us define God: allmost all theists and deists think "God is the creator, supreme being, all powerfull, omnipotent, omnipresent, just, omniscient, omnibenevolent, authority in morality, who determines the lives of people, eternal" and e.t.c

now, it too is possible that there is a humanlike specie who is outside of our universe, our Nuniverse, who is indepentdent on our laws. let us say they are elves, they are eternal yet not god, they are not omnipotent, they are not omnibenevolent, they are not omnipresent. they are too strong and too advanced, they once were chatting and one wanted to start something and they just started working on Nuniverse,they created it. they are like humans. a theist may ask: "who created them? of course god, so it is proven that god exists. " considering you think God is eternal and uncaused, why do you think it is impossible for elves to be eternal? they are eternall is too possible just like "God is eternal" assumption.

even though it is hard to imagine, it is possible. considering these are possible, God is not the possibility for kalam cosmologocal arguement. so, kalam cosmological arguement does not prove God exists.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 12:37:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 10:51:47 AM, Artur wrote:
God is not the only possibility for Kalam cosmological arguement. According to wikipedia, Sir Wiliam Craig is an outspoken defender of the arguement. I will go with the way he argues (and you can propose they way you wanna argue and we will examine whether you propose works or not). so, I am citing wikipedia:
Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:[3]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:[4]

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:

"... transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."
End quote.

now, Craig argues "whatever began to exist has a cause" e.g: caused by someone or something. I agree with this premise, unless something/someone was caused by something/someone that can not come to existence.
"universe began to exist, so it has a cause" agree. no arguement for that. BUT:

Craig or wiki (or both) says "If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
"

here is a flaw or a problem. while it can be true, there are other possibilities as well. just because universe has a cause does not mean its cause is God, someone/something that is uncaused, eternal, omnipotent and e.t.c. It may be. now, other options:

Our planet is a part of galaxy which is a part of universe. considering the way our galaxy and planet started to exist with a cause that was caused with the operations that run in our universe, our universe too can be a part of a larger system that includes universes. it is possible. what if our universe is part of a system which includes many universes. let us say the name of that system is "Nuniverse". this is possible, considering it is possible, Calam Kosmological arguement does not prove the existence of God. It might have been caused by someone or something that is not God. it is assumed, predicted that a large asteroid crushed the earth and hence moon started to exist as a seperate cosmic thing. universe too might have been caused by such plight.
theists may/will say "if that Nuniverse caused the universe to begin to exist, then God caused the Nuniverse, if you say Nuniverse is created by Funiverse it goes till infinity, which means it will require uncaused Creator, God. so god exists is proven."
ok, first of all, Kalam Cosmological arguement uses the universe, and uses god as the one who caused it. since universe might have been caused by the plight mentioned above is possible,the arguement is dead. but we will go on again:
if universe is caused by Nuniverse, is god the only possible creator of Nuniverse? No.
first let us define God: allmost all theists and deists think "God is the creator, supreme being, all powerfull, omnipotent, omnipresent, just, omniscient, omnibenevolent, authority in morality, who determines the lives of people, eternal" and e.t.c

now, it too is possible that there is a humanlike specie who is outside of our universe, our Nuniverse, who is indepentdent on our laws. let us say they are elves, they are eternal yet not god, they are not omnipotent, they are not omnibenevolent, they are not omnipresent. they are too strong and too advanced, they once were chatting and one wanted to start something and they just started working on Nuniverse,they created it. they are like humans. a theist may ask: "who created them? of course god, so it is proven that god exists. " considering you think God is eternal and uncaused, why do you think it is impossible for elves to be eternal? they are eternall is too possible just like "God is eternal" assumption.

even though it is hard to imagine, it is possible. considering these are possible, God is not the possibility for kalam cosmologocal arguement. so, kalam cosmological arguement does not prove God exists.

You mean instead of God we should believe in Eternal Elves.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 12:57:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
You mean instead of God we should believe in Eternal Elves.

no, I do not mean you should believe in elves and I do not mean you should believe in God.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 12:59:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 12:57:16 PM, Artur wrote:
You mean instead of God we should believe in Eternal Elves.

no, I do not mean you should believe in elves and I do not mean you should believe in God.

What do you mean?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:10:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 12:59:33 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:57:16 PM, Artur wrote:
You mean instead of God we should believe in Eternal Elves.

no, I do not mean you should believe in elves and I do not mean you should believe in God.

What do you mean?

I mean: universe began to exist does not mean "God exists and the cause of the universe. there are several possibilities which caused universe to begin to exist".

What if universe itself is a part of a system and that system is itself eternal? this too is possible.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:20:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 1:10:14 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:59:33 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/11/2016 12:57:16 PM, Artur wrote:
You mean instead of God we should believe in Eternal Elves.

no, I do not mean you should believe in elves and I do not mean you should believe in God.

What do you mean?

I mean: universe began to exist does not mean "God exists and the cause of the universe. there are several possibilities which caused universe to begin to exist".

What if universe itself is a part of a system and that system is itself eternal? this too is possible.

1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?

2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:24:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?
KCA assumes in that way and this thread discusses KCA. so, I am talking from the point of view of KCA
2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
just like god being eternal while the universe is not eternal.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:33:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 1:24:59 PM, Artur wrote:
1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?
KCA assumes in that way and this thread discusses KCA. so, I am talking from the point of view of KCA
2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
just like god being eternal while the universe is not eternal.
moreover, for #2:

just because A is a part of B does not mean B must be the same thing with A. earth is a part of a universe, universe expands but earth does not. universe is about 14 billion years old but earth is not. now you can understand how can nuniversr be eternal while universe is not.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:38:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 1:24:59 PM, Artur wrote:
1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?
KCA assumes in that way and this thread discusses KCA. so, I am talking from the point of view of KCA

Then why don't you assume God caused the universe?

2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
just like god being eternal while the universe is not eternal.

As per #1, The nuniverse comprise of universes , God creates universe .
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:49:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 1:33:20 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:24:59 PM, Artur wrote:
1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?
KCA assumes in that way and this thread discusses KCA. so, I am talking from the point of view of KCA
2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
just like god being eternal while the universe is not eternal.
moreover, for #2:

just because A is a part of B does not mean B must be the same thing with A.

Elaborate.

earth is a part of a universe, universe expands but earth does not.

Expands into what, the nuniverse? Or is it the new space being created out of nowhere?

universe is about 14 billion years old

How do we know the age of the universe?

but earth is not.

But you say 'earth is a part of a universe', how then universe is older than earth?

now you can understand how can nuniversr be eternal while universe is not.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 1:54:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 1:38:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:24:59 PM, Artur wrote:
1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?
KCA assumes in that way and this thread discusses KCA. so, I am talking from the point of view of KCA

Then why don't you assume God caused the universe?
just like you do not assume elbes or someone else caused the universe. why should I assume God caused it?
2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
just like god being eternal while the universe is not eternal.

As per #1, The nuniverse comprise of universes , God creates universe .
it is replied in my previous post.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 2:03:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 1:54:16 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:38:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:24:59 PM, Artur wrote:
1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?
KCA assumes in that way and this thread discusses KCA. so, I am talking from the point of view of KCA

Then why don't you assume God caused the universe?
just like you do not assume elbes or someone else caused the universe.

Hey, that's your premise not mine.

why should I assume God caused it?

Cause you're talking from the KCA point of view.

2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
just like god being eternal while the universe is not eternal.

As per #1, The nuniverse comprise of universes , God creates universe .
it is replied in my previous post.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 2:36:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 1:49:06 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:33:20 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:24:59 PM, Artur wrote:
1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?
KCA assumes in that way and this thread discusses KCA. so, I am talking from the point of view of KCA
2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
just like god being eternal while the universe is not eternal.
moreover, for #2:

just because A is a part of B does not mean B must be the same thing with A.

Elaborate.

earth is a part of a universe, universe expands but earth does not.

Expands into what
wherever it expands. that is not important regarding this discussion
the nuniverse? Or is it the new space being created out of nowhere?
both are possible.
universe is about 14 billion years old

How do we know the age of the universe?
how science clarifies or proves it is another topic. science says so.
but earth is not.

But you say 'earth is a part of a universe', how then universe is older than earth?
since one started to exist earlier that becomes older than the one that started later.

now you can understand how can nuniversr be eternal while universe is not.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 2:38:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 2:03:11 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:54:16 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:38:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:24:59 PM, Artur wrote:
1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?
KCA assumes in that way and this thread discusses KCA. so, I am talking from the point of view of KCA

Then why don't you assume God caused the universe?
just like you do not assume elbes or someone else caused the universe.

Hey, that's your premise not mine.
yes, and then? if you read carefully, it says "you do NOT assume"
why should I assume God caused it?

Cause you're talking from the KCA point of view.
no, I am refuting it.
2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
just like god being eternal while the universe is not eternal.

As per #1, The nuniverse comprise of universes , God creates universe .
it is replied in my previous post.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 2:40:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 2:38:05 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/11/2016 2:03:11 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:54:16 PM, Artur wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:38:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/11/2016 1:24:59 PM, Artur wrote:
1. Why the universe has to begin to exist?
KCA assumes in that way and this thread discusses KCA. so, I am talking from the point of view of KCA

Then why don't you assume God caused the universe?
just like you do not assume elbes or someone else caused the universe.

Hey, that's your premise not mine.
yes, and then? if you read carefully, it says "you do NOT assume"
why should I assume God caused it?

Cause you're talking from the KCA point of view.
no, I am refuting it. I am showing why KCA does not work. there are possibilities other than God, KCA assumes only God while there are others.
2. How can the nuniverse be eternal if universes are Not eternal?
just like god being eternal while the universe is not eternal.

As per #1, The nuniverse comprise of universes , God creates universe .
it is replied in my previous post.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 4:17:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 10:51:47 AM, Artur wrote:
God is not the only possibility for Kalam cosmological argument.
The KCA is an outdated argument -- we can do much better with knowledge today; but the god of Abraham is not even its implication -- Deism is.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 4:25:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Basically what the above poster said. The KCA never claimed to point to the Christian God. At best, it points to a monotheistic God, which could be Deism, or Judaism, Islam or Christianity.

Craig makes the point that the KCA leads to a creator. He then elaborates on the attributes of that creator (timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, powerful, etc) to arrive at what we call God. Other arguments are needed to build a cumulative case for the Christian God.