Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: (KCA)

Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Of the things debated in society, perhaps nothing is more hotly contested than the existence of a God. Over the course of time there have been many arguments made from many different angles. For example, an argument in favor of existence is the teleological argument also known as "fine tuning," or the "argument from design" argues that the universe is so organized as to suggest the necessity of a designer. (1) Likewise there are many arguments against the existence of a God; perhaps the most well know is the "problem of evil" which argues if there is an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being, he (or she) would know where evil is, have the power to destroy it, and being morally perfect would do so. Since evil exists, it is argued God must not. (2) Since stumbling across such arguments about God I have found myself fascinated by the arguments made and especially intrigued by the evolution that these arguments take over time. I would like to share a few thoughts on a specific argument in favor of God; The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The History of the Cosmological argument

Perhaps one of the oldest arguments for the existence of God, we can trace the cosmological argument at least as far back as to Aristotle who argued for a first cause. Notably, Thomas Aquinas presented a few different versions of this argument. I will reference two.

1st The argument from motion; essentially Aquinas argued that things move as a result of other movements. Aquinas believed an infinite regression to be unreasonable and thus concluded there must be a "prime mover." i.e. God.

2nd The argument from causation; in this case he argues essentially the same, that all things are caused and to avoid the problem of an infinite regression means there must be an uncaused first cause. i.e. God.

Both of these arguments have taken a great deal of criticism. I will briefly outline them here.

Criticism 1: The first criticism deals primarily with the identity of God. Even if you accept these arguments they do not make a case for a particular God, or in fact a singular God. The same argument could justify polytheism as theism. In addition, the arguments do not make the case of a sentient God. Thus the cosmological arguments don"t support the kind of personal God people profess to believe in or pray to.

Criticism 2: Thomas Aquinas rejected an infinite regress as possible, though so far as I can tell no case is made as to why.

Criticism 3: The arguments are themselves, self-defeating. If everything that moves is the result of another mover, or every cause the result of a causer, why is God an exception? If there are exceptions, we have no reason to accept the first premise of either argument.

This brings me to why I am fascinated by the KCA.

A brief summary of the KCA
(I borrowed the following from Tejeretics vs Kasmic debate.) (3)

Kasmic argued the following;

"P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

"Nihil fit ex nihilo" That is to say that nothing comes from nothing. Things do not just pop out of nowhere. Believing in magic performed by a magician is more practical than believing that out of nothing comes nothing. At least with a magician the rabbit pulled from the hat is claimed to have come from a hat as opposed to have just materialized. This first premise is rationally intuitive and a fundamental principle of science.

P2: The Universe began to exist

There is consensus in the scientific community that the universe is not eternal, that is to say has not always existed. Rather it is clear that the universe had an absolute beginning around thirteen billion years ago in the event known as the Big Bang. Thus the second premise is true.

As both P1 and P2 are supported it is logical to conclude,

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

Thus we see that the KCA provides a compelling argument for the existence of God."
If you would like to see it presented via video, here is a link.

https://www.youtube.com...

KCA vs Cosmological Criticisms

We see that the KCA addresses some of the criticism of older cosmological arguments and ignores others.

The KCA does give some justification for a "personal" creator though I think it is still reasonable to say it does not argue for a specific God. It does not really seem to address infinite regression. What it really does in my opinion is give reasoning to why God would or could be the sole exception to the rule of causation.

Closing comment and a questions

Now that I have spent all this time writing this, I am at the end and don"t know what I was writing for haha. I guess I am curious if people find the KCA convincing? If you do, or don"t, I am curious as to what convinces you.

Sources

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(2) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(3) http://www.debate.org...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:23:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:
Of the things debated in society, perhaps nothing is more hotly contested than the existence of a God. Over the course of time there have been many arguments made from many different angles. For example, an argument in favor of existence is the teleological argument also known as "fine tuning," or the "argument from design" argues that the universe is so organized as to suggest the necessity of a designer. (1) Likewise there are many arguments against the existence of a God; perhaps the most well know is the "problem of evil" which argues if there is an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being, he (or she) would know where evil is, have the power to destroy it, and being morally perfect would do so. Since evil exists, it is argued God must not. (2) Since stumbling across such arguments about God I have found myself fascinated by the arguments made and especially intrigued by the evolution that these arguments take over time. I would like to share a few thoughts on a specific argument in favor of God; The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The History of the Cosmological argument

Perhaps one of the oldest arguments for the existence of God, we can trace the cosmological argument at least as far back as to Aristotle who argued for a first cause. Notably, Thomas Aquinas presented a few different versions of this argument. I will reference two.

1st The argument from motion; essentially Aquinas argued that things move as a result of other movements. Aquinas believed an infinite regression to be unreasonable and thus concluded there must be a "prime mover." i.e. God.

2nd The argument from causation; in this case he argues essentially the same, that all things are caused and to avoid the problem of an infinite regression means there must be an uncaused first cause. i.e. God.

Both of these arguments have taken a great deal of criticism. I will briefly outline them here.

Criticism 1: The first criticism deals primarily with the identity of God. Even if you accept these arguments they do not make a case for a particular God, or in fact a singular God. The same argument could justify polytheism as theism. In addition, the arguments do not make the case of a sentient God. Thus the cosmological arguments don"t support the kind of personal God people profess to believe in or pray to.

Criticism 2: Thomas Aquinas rejected an infinite regress as possible, though so far as I can tell no case is made as to why.

Criticism 3: The arguments are themselves, self-defeating. If everything that moves is the result of another mover, or every cause the result of a causer, why is God an exception? If there are exceptions, we have no reason to accept the first premise of either argument.

This brings me to why I am fascinated by the KCA.

A brief summary of the KCA
(I borrowed the following from Tejeretics vs Kasmic debate.) (3)

Kasmic argued the following;

"P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

"Nihil fit ex nihilo" That is to say that nothing comes from nothing. Things do not just pop out of nowhere. Believing in magic performed by a magician is more practical than believing that out of nothing comes nothing. At least with a magician the rabbit pulled from the hat is claimed to have come from a hat as opposed to have just materialized. This first premise is rationally intuitive and a fundamental principle of science.

P2: The Universe began to exist

There is consensus in the scientific community that the universe is not eternal, that is to say has not always existed. Rather it is clear that the universe had an absolute beginning around thirteen billion years ago in the event known as the Big Bang. Thus the second premise is true.

As both P1 and P2 are supported it is logical to conclude,

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

Thus we see that the KCA provides a compelling argument for the existence of God."
If you would like to see it presented via video, here is a link.

https://www.youtube.com...

KCA vs Cosmological Criticisms

We see that the KCA addresses some of the criticism of older cosmological arguments and ignores others.

The KCA does give some justification for a "personal" creator though I think it is still reasonable to say it does not argue for a specific God. It does not really seem to address infinite regression. What it really does in my opinion is give reasoning to why God would or could be the sole exception to the rule of causation.

Closing comment and a questions

Now that I have spent all this time writing this, I am at the end and don"t know what I was writing for haha. I guess I am curious if people find the KCA convincing? If you do, or don"t, I am curious as to what convinces you.

Sources

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(2) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(3) http://www.debate.org...

The Big Bang Theory is based on observation. The observation is correct, but the theory is not absolute. However, the theory could be absolute based on the observation. The KCA, on the other hand, is not based on observation, but conjecture, and conjecture cannot be absolute, because anything absolute is not conjecture.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:46:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

This is where it gets wanky. That "must be" portion above is an assumption. Why must whatever gave arise to space/time and universe be intelligent?
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 8:46:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:46:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

This is where it gets wanky. That "must be" portion above is an assumption. Why must whatever gave arise to space/time and universe be intelligent?

I think the difficulty here is compounded as by "intelligent" I think is meant self aware, or sentient. Though, I am not really sure what intelligent really entails.
Seagull
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:36:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:23:00 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

The Big Bang Theory is based on observation. The observation is correct, but the theory is not absolute. However, the theory could be absolute based on the observation. The KCA, on the other hand, is not based on observation, but conjecture, and conjecture cannot be absolute, because anything absolute is not conjecture.

So, your view is that because it is conjecture and not absolute......... I feel like I am missing something.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 10:04:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 9:36:40 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:23:00 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

The Big Bang Theory is based on observation. The observation is correct, but the theory is not absolute. However, the theory could be absolute based on the observation. The KCA, on the other hand, is not based on observation, but conjecture, and conjecture cannot be absolute, because anything absolute is not conjecture.

So, your view is that because it is conjecture and not absolute......... I feel like I am missing something.

The Big Bang is based on the observation of an apparently expanding universe.

What is the KCA based on?

Answer that question, and if you're still missing something, it's probably because everyone else is as well. There is zero established proof of a Big Bang or a First Cause.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 11:17:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:
Of the things debated in society, perhaps nothing is more hotly contested than the existence of a God. Over the course of time there have been many arguments made from many different angles. For example, an argument in favor of existence is the teleological argument also known as "fine tuning," or the "argument from design" argues that the universe is so organized as to suggest the necessity of a designer. (1) Likewise there are many arguments against the existence of a God; perhaps the most well know is the "problem of evil" which argues if there is an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being, he (or she) would know where evil is, have the power to destroy it, and being morally perfect would do so. Since evil exists, it is argued God must not. (2) Since stumbling across such arguments about God I have found myself fascinated by the arguments made and especially intrigued by the evolution that these arguments take over time. I would like to share a few thoughts on a specific argument in favor of God; The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The History of the Cosmological argument

Perhaps one of the oldest arguments for the existence of God, we can trace the cosmological argument at least as far back as to Aristotle who argued for a first cause. Notably, Thomas Aquinas presented a few different versions of this argument. I will reference two.

1st The argument from motion; essentially Aquinas argued that things move as a result of other movements. Aquinas believed an infinite regression to be unreasonable and thus concluded there must be a "prime mover." i.e. God.

2nd The argument from causation; in this case he argues essentially the same, that all things are caused and to avoid the problem of an infinite regression means there must be an uncaused first cause. i.e. God.

Both of these arguments have taken a great deal of criticism. I will briefly outline them here.

Criticism 1: The first criticism deals primarily with the identity of God. Even if you accept these arguments they do not make a case for a particular God, or in fact a singular God. The same argument could justify polytheism as theism. In addition, the arguments do not make the case of a sentient God. Thus the cosmological arguments don"t support the kind of personal God people profess to believe in or pray to.

Criticism 2: Thomas Aquinas rejected an infinite regress as possible, though so far as I can tell no case is made as to why.

Criticism 3: The arguments are themselves, self-defeating. If everything that moves is the result of another mover, or every cause the result of a causer, why is God an exception? If there are exceptions, we have no reason to accept the first premise of either argument.

This brings me to why I am fascinated by the KCA.

A brief summary of the KCA
(I borrowed the following from Tejeretics vs Kasmic debate.) (3)

Kasmic argued the following;

"P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

"Nihil fit ex nihilo" That is to say that nothing comes from nothing. Things do not just pop out of nowhere. Believing in magic performed by a magician is more practical than believing that out of nothing comes nothing. At least with a magician the rabbit pulled from the hat is claimed to have come from a hat as opposed to have just materialized. This first premise is rationally intuitive and a fundamental principle of science.

P2: The Universe began to exist

There is consensus in the scientific community that the universe is not eternal, that is to say has not always existed. Rather it is clear that the universe had an absolute beginning around thirteen billion years ago in the event known as the Big Bang. Thus the second premise is true.

As both P1 and P2 are supported it is logical to conclude,

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

Thus we see that the KCA provides a compelling argument for the existence of God."
If you would like to see it presented via video, here is a link.

https://www.youtube.com...

KCA vs Cosmological Criticisms

We see that the KCA addresses some of the criticism of older cosmological arguments and ignores others.

The KCA does give some justification for a "personal" creator though I think it is still reasonable to say it does not argue for a specific God. It does not really seem to address infinite regression. What it really does in my opinion is give reasoning to why God would or could be the sole exception to the rule of causation.

Closing comment and a questions

Now that I have spent all this time writing this, I am at the end and don"t know what I was writing for haha. I guess I am curious if people find the KCA convincing? If you do, or don"t, I am curious as to what convinces you.

Sources

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(2) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(3) http://www.debate.org...

The key flaw in the theists argument is how did God come into existence. Claiming a God created the universe simply creates a new question. What created God?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Malsent
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:09:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I take issue with P1 "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." Name one thing that we have observed come into existence. I can: virtual particles. They come into existence entirely uncaused and at random. Everything else that is "created" is merely rearrangements of existing matter and energy. Hence, the first premise is flawed and the entire argument falls apart.

It is also special pleading to essentially argue everything but god has to have a cause. How could you possibly know this? Such arrogance! Show me god, and let him prove he has no beginning. This argument simply tries to define god into existence, but even if it wasn't flawed at best you could argue that someTHING (not someONE) caused the universe.

I also take objection to WLC's definition in C. Something that is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial simply does not exist. Numbers are not timeless, spaceless, and immaterial--they are IDEAS, they don't actually exist. They are a model that we continue to use because they work really well, not because we have discovered some ethereal object. Further, show me a mind existing without matter. You can't, because as far as has ever been observed no mind has ever existed without a material brain. Once again, this is special pleading for god saying "oh, it's god, he doesn't have to follow the rules." Show me this god actually existing and not following the rules and I'll believe you, but so far all this argument does is try to define god into existence, and is doing very poorly at doing so.

One more fatal flaw of the KCA is that it tries to apply the rules of objects in the set to the set itself. E.G. even if you can answer the previous objections and show me something being caused into existence, etc. you are still saying that the rules for objects within the universe apply to the universe itself; and that simply does not follow. As an example consider the set [1, 2, 3, 4]. Obviously the next number in the set is 5. But what the KCA tries to argue is that the next set MUST be [2, 3, 4, 5] and that is obviously not true! The next set could be anything! Why? Because the rules for items in a set do not apply to the set itself. For this reason the entire arrangement of the KCA is fallacious.

What caused the universe? The truthful answer is: we don't know (yet). Though there is mounting evidence that it was a gigantic quantum event, and quantum events can be entirely random.
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 4:06:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:46:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

This is where it gets wanky. That "must be" portion above is an assumption. Why must whatever gave arise to space/time and universe be intelligent?

The big bang theory isn't, in fact, based on observation. It is based largely on speculation. It is a largely untested hypothesis of generation for cosmology, but the evidence is circumstantial at best and certainly not indicative of a well-established scientific theory. It's more of a well-accepted theory as a concession for there being none better put forward by a respected scientist.

I'm not saying I support the speculations in the OP, but keep in mind that dark matter and dark energy were largely invented because observation DOESN'T MATCH the predictions of Big Bang Cosmology.

There is no evidence of dark matter or dark energy, scientists have effectively created a mathematical model for hypothetical non-detectable matte and energy in order to explain away a glaring observational anomaly in cosmological models for accelerated expansion of the universe.

Now don't get me wrong, they may have guessed right, but right now that's all it is. A guess. They don't want to abandon the model so many of them have invested their hearts and souls in, so they have invented a way to keep it alive.

I love science, but teaching that as fact this early in the game is blatant philosophical speculation and indicates a high probability of cognitive bias on the part of cosmologists.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 4:12:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 11:17:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:
Of the things debated in society, perhaps nothing is more hotly contested than the existence of a God. Over the course of time there have been many arguments made from many different angles. For example, an argument in favor of existence is the teleological argument also known as "fine tuning," or the "argument from design" argues that the universe is so organized as to suggest the necessity of a designer. (1) Likewise there are many arguments against the existence of a God; perhaps the most well know is the "problem of evil" which argues if there is an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being, he (or she) would know where evil is, have the power to destroy it, and being morally perfect would do so. Since evil exists, it is argued God must not. (2) Since stumbling across such arguments about God I have found myself fascinated by the arguments made and especially intrigued by the evolution that these arguments take over time. I would like to share a few thoughts on a specific argument in favor of God; The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The History of the Cosmological argument

Perhaps one of the oldest arguments for the existence of God, we can trace the cosmological argument at least as far back as to Aristotle who argued for a first cause. Notably, Thomas Aquinas presented a few different versions of this argument. I will reference two.

1st The argument from motion; essentially Aquinas argued that things move as a result of other movements. Aquinas believed an infinite regression to be unreasonable and thus concluded there must be a "prime mover." i.e. God.

2nd The argument from causation; in this case he argues essentially the same, that all things are caused and to avoid the problem of an infinite regression means there must be an uncaused first cause. i.e. God.

Both of these arguments have taken a great deal of criticism. I will briefly outline them here.

Criticism 1: The first criticism deals primarily with the identity of God. Even if you accept these arguments they do not make a case for a particular God, or in fact a singular God. The same argument could justify polytheism as theism. In addition, the arguments do not make the case of a sentient God. Thus the cosmological arguments don"t support the kind of personal God people profess to believe in or pray to.

Criticism 2: Thomas Aquinas rejected an infinite regress as possible, though so far as I can tell no case is made as to why.

Criticism 3: The arguments are themselves, self-defeating. If everything that moves is the result of another mover, or every cause the result of a causer, why is God an exception? If there are exceptions, we have no reason to accept the first premise of either argument.

This brings me to why I am fascinated by the KCA.

A brief summary of the KCA
(I borrowed the following from Tejeretics vs Kasmic debate.) (3)

Kasmic argued the following;

"P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

"Nihil fit ex nihilo" That is to say that nothing comes from nothing. Things do not just pop out of nowhere. Believing in magic performed by a magician is more practical than believing that out of nothing comes nothing. At least with a magician the rabbit pulled from the hat is claimed to have come from a hat as opposed to have just materialized. This first premise is rationally intuitive and a fundamental principle of science.

P2: The Universe began to exist

There is consensus in the scientific community that the universe is not eternal, that is to say has not always existed. Rather it is clear that the universe had an absolute beginning around thirteen billion years ago in the event known as the Big Bang. Thus the second premise is true.

As both P1 and P2 are supported it is logical to conclude,

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

Thus we see that the KCA provides a compelling argument for the existence of God."
If you would like to see it presented via video, here is a link.

https://www.youtube.com...

KCA vs Cosmological Criticisms

We see that the KCA addresses some of the criticism of older cosmological arguments and ignores others.

The KCA does give some justification for a "personal" creator though I think it is still reasonable to say it does not argue for a specific God. It does not really seem to address infinite regression. What it really does in my opinion is give reasoning to why God would or could be the sole exception to the rule of causation.

Closing comment and a questions

Now that I have spent all this time writing this, I am at the end and don"t know what I was writing for haha. I guess I am curious if people find the KCA convincing? If you do, or don"t, I am curious as to what convinces you.

Sources

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(2) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(3) http://www.debate.org...

The key flaw in the theists argument is how did God come into existence. Claiming a God created the universe simply creates a new question. What created God?

We don't have to explain how.

The universe exists now.

That can singularly matter when the described occurs.
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 10:00:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:
Of the things debated in society, perhaps nothing is more hotly contested than the existence of a God. Over the course of time there have been many arguments made from many different angles. For example, an argument in favor of existence is the teleological argument also known as "fine tuning," or the "argument from design" argues that the universe is so organized as to suggest the necessity of a designer. (1) Likewise there are many arguments against the existence of a God; perhaps the most well know is the "problem of evil" which argues if there is an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being, he (or she) would know where evil is, have the power to destroy it, and being morally perfect would do so. Since evil exists, it is argued God must not. (2) ...

The argument of "problem of evil" has many assumptions that need to be proven first.. And believe me, they cannot be proven. Here are some of my responses to the problem of evil...
http://www.debate.org...

The History of the Cosmological argument

Perhaps one of the oldest arguments for the existence of God, we can trace the cosmological argument at least as far back as to Aristotle who argued for a first cause. Notably, Thomas Aquinas presented a few different versions of this argument. I will reference two.

1st The argument from motion; essentially Aquinas argued that things move as a result of other movements. Aquinas believed an infinite regression to be unreasonable and thus concluded there must be a "prime mover." i.e. God.

2nd The argument from causation; in this case he argues essentially the same, that all things are caused and to avoid the problem of an infinite regression means there must be an uncaused first cause. i.e. God.

You are missing the most important part in history of the KCA (from where "Kalam" part comes).. Research Al-Ghazali

Both of these arguments have taken a great deal of criticism. I will briefly outline them here.

Criticism 1: The first criticism deals primarily with the identity of God. Even if you accept these arguments they do not make a case for a particular God, or in fact a singular God. The same argument could justify polytheism as theism. In addition, the arguments do not make the case of a sentient God. Thus the cosmological arguments don"t support the kind of personal God people profess to believe in or pray to.

KCA is composed of P1, P2 and a conclusion.. The conclusion is: "The universe has a cause".. The KCA alone doesn't say anything about what/who this cause is, this issue is discussed separately following the KCA conclusion..

Criticism 2: Thomas Aquinas rejected an infinite regress as possible, though so far as I can tell no case is made as to why.

Based on what? Where do you know from that no case is made as to why?

Criticism 3: The arguments are themselves, self-defeating. If everything that moves is the result of another mover, or every cause the result of a causer, why is God an exception?

Because that is a deductive conclusion! Research what a deductive conclusion is..

If there are exceptions, we have no reason to accept the first premise of either argument.

Then you will be saying that something can move absolutely without anything causing it to move.. or something can happen absolutely without anything causing it.. That is literally being ignorant of reality around us. That is ignoring everyday observations, physics etc. etc.. Shortly, that is being insane!!

The point here is that we know that;

1) anything we know requires a cause,
2) if there wasn't anything else that doesn't require a cause (that probably we don't know of), then there would be an infinite regression of causes,
3) an infinite regression is impossible (will be discussed in a moment),
4) then there necessarily exists something that doesn't require a cause (probably we don't know it, but deductively concluded)..

This is why there is an exception for the cause of KCA to be uncaused, unlike the causes we know.. We know that whatever we know cannot be under such an exception!!

This brings me to why I am fascinated by the KCA.

You are welcome!.

A brief summary of the KCA (I borrowed the following from Tejeretics vs Kasmic debate.) (3)

Kasmic argued the following;

"P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

"Nihil fit ex nihilo" That is to say that nothing comes from nothing. Things do not just pop out of nowhere. Believing in magic performed by a magician is more practical than believing that out of nothing comes nothing. At least with a magician the rabbit pulled from the hat is claimed to have come from a hat as opposed to have just materialized. This first premise is rationally intuitive and a fundamental principle of science.

P2: The Universe began to exist

There is consensus in the scientific community that the universe is not eternal, that is to say has not always existed. Rather it is clear that the universe had an absolute beginning around thirteen billion years ago in the event known as the Big Bang. Thus the second premise is true.

As both P1 and P2 are supported it is logical to conclude,

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

Thus we see that the KCA provides a compelling argument for the existence of God."
If you would like to see it presented via video, here is a link.

https://www.youtube.com...

KCA vs Cosmological Criticisms

We see that the KCA addresses some of the criticism of older cosmological arguments and ignores others.

The KCA does give some justification for a "personal" creator though I think it is still reasonable to say it does not argue for a specific God.

I can agree to this.. if we assumed only P1, P2 and conclusion of KCA and ignored all other discussions following this conclusion..

It does not really seem to address infinite regression. What it really does in my opinion is give reasoning to why God would or could be the sole exception to the rule of causation.

That is correct!!

Closing comment and a questions

Now that I have spent all this time writing this, I am at the end and don"t know what I was writing for haha.

That was really good :)

I guess I am curious if people find the KCA convincing? If you do, or don"t, I am curious as to what convinces you.

It would be my pleasure to share my opinions on the subject.. I will post as a separate post here.

Sources

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(2) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(3) http://www.debate.org...
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:07:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (KCA)

P1: Everything that begins to exist necessarily has a cause.

P2: The universe began to exist.

C: The universe necessarily has a cause.

P1:

Nothing comes into existence from nothing without a cause. It is completely unreasonable & nonsense to claim otherwise.

P2:

1. It is well-known that the Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe has a beginning.

2. The laws of thermodynamics suggest that the universe has a beginning.

According to laws of thermodynamics, heat always transfers from hotter regions towards cooler regions until all regions have the same temperature. Since there are regions that are cooler than other regions, like stars & galaxies, then the universe didn"t exist for sufficient time for all regions to have the same temperature. Therefore, the universe has a beginning.[1]

C:

Since P1 & P2 are true, then it necessary follows that the universe has a cause.

CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE

I think the key point here is to understand what infinite regression would imply.. Now I will try to show that infinite regression is impossible..

Think about beginning (to exist) of the universe. There necessarily exists a cause (C1) for its beginning. There necessarily exists another cause (C2) for C1. " There necessarily exists another cause (Ci) for C(i-1). There are only two options (it is either finite (a) or infinite (b)) for this chain of causes:

a) This chain stops in Ci if and only if (iff) Ci doesn"t need another cause to exist, i.e., iff Ci is uncaused.

b) Otherwise this chain goes to (actual) infinity.

If we show that option b is impossible, then option a is necessarily true.

Let's assume that option b is the case. This means that there is a chain of total of infinite causes (Inf.(T)) before our universe begins, i.e., it goes "back" forever & never reaches a beginning point.

Since infinity = infinity/2 + infinity/2 & infinity/2 = infinity, then imagine a point that separates the chain of causes of our universe into two parts where there are infinite number of causes between this point & our universe (Inf. (1)) & the rest of infinite number of causes before this point (Inf.(2)). So, we have

Inf. (T) = Inf. (1) + Inf. (2).

This literally means that there are still infinitely many causes prior to this point & infinitely many causes after this point until the beginning of our universe.

Since such an imaginary point exists on the chain of infinitely many causes of our universe, then our universe waited for infinitely many causes (Inf.(1)) to happen before it began to exist.

What does "waiting for infinitely many causes to happen" mean?

-It literally means "waiting forever"..

-which literally means "not stopping waiting forever"..

-which literally means "NEVER stopping waiting"..

-which literally implies that in such a case "our universe waited forever before beginning to exist"..

-which implies "our universe NEVER stopped waiting before it began to exist"..

-which literally means "our universe is still waiting before beginning to exist"..

-which literally means "our universe has not began to exist yet"..

-which literally means "our universe doesn"t exist yet".


This (i.e., option b above) is a clear contradiction to reality... since our universe DOES exist.

Since the assumption that "option b is the case" contradicts with reality, then option b, which states that there were infinitely many causes before the universe, is not the case, hence impossible!!!

=> Since option b is impossible, then option a must be true.

Since option a is true, then there necessarily exists a cause Ci which has no beginning / is uncaused.

1. Since the universe has a beginning, then it necessarily has a cause.

2. If the cause of our universe began to exist, then it necessarily has another cause. Similarly, that cause has another cause etc..

3. Since the chain of causes in (2) cannot go to infinity as shown above, then there is necessarily a beginning of those causes, i.e., there necessarily exists an initial cause (Ci) which hasn't began to exist, i.e., doesn't have a beginning, i.e., always existed, i.e., is eternal, i.e., is uncaused (i.e., Ci in option a).

We call/name/define this uncaused initial cause as God. If one asks what caused God to exist, then the answer is that He is necessarily UNCAUSED, as demonstrated above.

Further clarification

Imagine a moving train with 80 wagons.

- Since 80th wagon is moving, then what is pulling it (pulling is the type of cause in this case)?

- 79th wagon!

- What about 79th wagon?

- 78th wagon!

"

- What about 1st wagon?

- Locomotive!

- What is pulling the locomotive?

- What?! The locomotive doesn"t need to be pulled by something else in order to move. It is able to move without being pulled (unlike other wagons it has an engine).

If there are moving wagons (i.e., a train), then there necessarily exists something that, unlike other wagons, doesn"t need ANYTHING ELSE to pull it & it has the ability to move itself & all other wagons, i.e., locomotive. It is so, because infinite number of moving wagons, each of which requires something else to pull it, is physically impossible & logically absurd.

Similarly, for an existing universe (including all causes until the initial cause), where everything in it has a beginning, there necessarily exists an uncaused initial cause that has the ability to create the universe from nothing. We call this uncaused initial cause as the Creator of the universe or the God.
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:24:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Please demonstrate that " Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an absolute true proposition that applies to everything not only in the universe but to the universe itself.

Until such burden has been met the, there is no case.
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:38:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:24:27 AM, Athomos wrote:
Please demonstrate that " Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an absolute true proposition that applies to everything not only in the universe but to the universe itself.

1. This is the most reasonable proposition.. Nothing comes from nothing!!!

2. We know nothing that contradicts the above proposition.

3. Try to understand what "nothing" is.. Then it will be self-explanatory as for why "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"..

Until such burden has been met the, there is no case.

There are billions of observations that even the slightest event such as a small motion necessarily has a cause.. Not a single observation or evidence exists to support the idea that anything could begin to exist from nothing / without anything causing it..
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:51:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:38:07 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:24:27 AM, Athomos wrote:
Please demonstrate that " Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an absolute true proposition that applies to everything not only in the universe but to the universe itself.

1. This is the most reasonable proposition.. Nothing comes from nothing!!!

2. We know nothing that contradicts the above proposition.

3. Try to understand what "nothing" is.. Then it will be self-explanatory as for why "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"..

Until such burden has been met the, there is no case.

There are billions of observations that even the slightest event such as a small motion necessarily has a cause.. Not a single observation or evidence exists to support the idea that anything could begin to exist from nothing / without anything causing it..

I can see you keep asserting the first postulate. That is not tantamount to showing it.
Quantum vacuum, ever heard of that? Particles popping in and out of existence, ever heard of that?

This is the problem with looking at your backyard and thinking "hmmm, cabbages just don't pop into existence, do they? Ergo the universe can't possibly have."

General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively disproven the notion the Universe operates like your local backyard. The universe is under no obligation to do so just so our easily perturbed spirits can be kept less anxious and under the illusion reality follows classical physics. It does not.

In quantum mechanics all sorts of weird phenomena have been proven to exist.
Deal with it.

Lawrence Krauss, the cosmologist, has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:40:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:51:11 AM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:38:07 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:24:27 AM, Athomos wrote:
Please demonstrate that " Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an absolute true proposition that applies to everything not only in the universe but to the universe itself.

1. This is the most reasonable proposition.. Nothing comes from nothing!!!

2. We know nothing that contradicts the above proposition.

3. Try to understand what "nothing" is.. Then it will be self-explanatory as for why "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"..

Until such burden has been met the, there is no case.

There are billions of observations that even the slightest event such as a small motion necessarily has a cause.. Not a single observation or evidence exists to support the idea that anything could begin to exist from nothing / without anything causing it..

I can see you keep asserting the first postulate. That is not tantamount to showing it.
Quantum vacuum, ever heard of that? Particles popping in and out of existence, ever heard of that?

Of course I've heard of it..

1. What is a "quantum vacuum"? Is it "nothing"?

2. What causes the particle-antiparticle pairs appear and disappear in a quantum vacuum? We don't know.

To say that nothing causes them is a logical fallacy, namely Argument from Ignorance fallacy!!

This is the problem with looking at your backyard and thinking "hmmm, cabbages just don't pop into existence, do they? Ergo the universe can't possibly have."

This is the problem with looking at a quantum vacuum and observing the popping of this particles into existence and thinking "hmmm this particles pop into existence and I see/know no cause, do I? Ergo they are popping into existence out of nothing with no cause."

Hence, Argument from Ignorance Logical Fallacy!!!

General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively disproven the notion the Universe operates like your local backyard.

On the exact contrary.. General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively proven (assumed, if I were speaking scientifically) the notion the universe operates like my local backyard. As if I am hearing now you shouting your objections that I am wrong.. Let me explain.

My local backyard is made up of atoms and subatomic particles, where quantum mechanics applies.. General relativity and Quantum Mechanics ASSUME that the way particles behave in my local backyard is universally applicable everywhere in the universe..

If you are still objecting, then change "my local backyard" to a "quantum mechanics laboratory".. :)

The universe is under no obligation to do so just so our easily perturbed spirits can be kept less anxious and under the illusion reality follows classical physics. It does not.

No it does.. Classical physics is significantly accurate in large objects (larger than molecules etc.). Otherwise we wouldn't be able to place satellites in orbits around the Earth. Quantum Mechanical phenomena (like particle-wave duality of electrons in a double slit experiment etc.) don't apply to large objects..

In quantum mechanics all sorts of weird phenomena have been proven to exist.

All sort of proven weird phenomena have been proven to exist, not absolutely all sort of weird phenomena!! There should be a limit even in exaggerations, shouldn't there?

Deal with it.

I have a BS degree in physics (partially concentrated on particle physics and mainly on photonics) and never gave up researching until now..

I wonder how much you have dealt with it, would you like to share?

Lawrence Krauss, the cosmologist, has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th

I would love to discuss his opinions on the subject, if you bring any..
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 12:58:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 12:40:05 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:51:11 AM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:38:07 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:24:27 AM, Athomos wrote:
Please demonstrate that " Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an absolute true proposition that applies to everything not only in the universe but to the universe itself.

1. This is the most reasonable proposition.. Nothing comes from nothing!!!

2. We know nothing that contradicts the above proposition.

3. Try to understand what "nothing" is.. Then it will be self-explanatory as for why "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"..

Until such burden has been met the, there is no case.

There are billions of observations that even the slightest event such as a small motion necessarily has a cause.. Not a single observation or evidence exists to support the idea that anything could begin to exist from nothing / without anything causing it..

I can see you keep asserting the first postulate. That is not tantamount to showing it.
Quantum vacuum, ever heard of that? Particles popping in and out of existence, ever heard of that?

Of course I've heard of it..

1. What is a "quantum vacuum"? Is it "nothing"?

2. What causes the particle-antiparticle pairs appear and disappear in a quantum vacuum? We don't know.

To say that nothing causes them is a logical fallacy, namely Argument from Ignorance fallacy!!

This is the problem with looking at your backyard and thinking "hmmm, cabbages just don't pop into existence, do they? Ergo the universe can't possibly have."

This is the problem with looking at a quantum vacuum and observing the popping of this particles into existence and thinking "hmmm this particles pop into existence and I see/know no cause, do I? Ergo they are popping into existence out of nothing with no cause."

Hence, Argument from Ignorance Logical Fallacy!!!

General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively disproven the notion the Universe operates like your local backyard.

On the exact contrary.. General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively proven (assumed, if I were speaking scientifically) the notion the universe operates like my local backyard. As if I am hearing now you shouting your objections that I am wrong.. Let me explain.

My local backyard is made up of atoms and subatomic particles, where quantum mechanics applies.. General relativity and Quantum Mechanics ASSUME that the way particles behave in my local backyard is universally applicable everywhere in the universe..

If you are still objecting, then change "my local backyard" to a "quantum mechanics laboratory".. :)

The universe is under no obligation to do so just so our easily perturbed spirits can be kept less anxious and under the illusion reality follows classical physics. It does not.

No it does.. Classical physics is significantly accurate in large objects (larger than molecules etc.). Otherwise we wouldn't be able to place satellites in orbits around the Earth. Quantum Mechanical phenomena (like particle-wave duality of electrons in a double slit experiment etc.) don't apply to large objects..

In quantum mechanics all sorts of weird phenomena have been proven to exist.

All sort of proven weird phenomena have been proven to exist, not absolutely all sort of weird phenomena!! There should be a limit even in exaggerations, shouldn't there?

Deal with it.

I have a BS degree in physics (partially concentrated on particle physics and mainly on photonics) and never gave up researching until now..

I wonder how much you have dealt with it, would you like to share?

Lawrence Krauss, the cosmologist, has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th

I would love to discuss his opinions on the subject, if you bring any..

You completely missed my point from start to finish.
I did not and am not claiming things can come from nothing.

It is up to the people who assert the absoluteness of the statement "nothing can ever come nothing" to prove it, which they have yet to do. This is science 101, as you should know.

Luckily, I don't need to wave my alleged academic credentials , which no one would be bothered to check anyway - in an attempt to lend credence to my point. That would be a fallacy.
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 1:20:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 12:58:05 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/19/2016 12:40:05 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:51:11 AM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:38:07 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:24:27 AM, Athomos wrote:
Please demonstrate that " Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an absolute true proposition that applies to everything not only in the universe but to the universe itself.

1. This is the most reasonable proposition.. Nothing comes from nothing!!!

2. We know nothing that contradicts the above proposition.

3. Try to understand what "nothing" is.. Then it will be self-explanatory as for why "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"..

Until such burden has been met the, there is no case.

There are billions of observations that even the slightest event such as a small motion necessarily has a cause.. Not a single observation or evidence exists to support the idea that anything could begin to exist from nothing / without anything causing it..

I can see you keep asserting the first postulate. That is not tantamount to showing it.
Quantum vacuum, ever heard of that? Particles popping in and out of existence, ever heard of that?

Of course I've heard of it..

1. What is a "quantum vacuum"? Is it "nothing"?

2. What causes the particle-antiparticle pairs appear and disappear in a quantum vacuum? We don't know.

To say that nothing causes them is a logical fallacy, namely Argument from Ignorance fallacy!!

This is the problem with looking at your backyard and thinking "hmmm, cabbages just don't pop into existence, do they? Ergo the universe can't possibly have."

This is the problem with looking at a quantum vacuum and observing the popping of this particles into existence and thinking "hmmm this particles pop into existence and I see/know no cause, do I? Ergo they are popping into existence out of nothing with no cause."

Hence, Argument from Ignorance Logical Fallacy!!!

General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively disproven the notion the Universe operates like your local backyard.

On the exact contrary.. General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively proven (assumed, if I were speaking scientifically) the notion the universe operates like my local backyard. As if I am hearing now you shouting your objections that I am wrong.. Let me explain.

My local backyard is made up of atoms and subatomic particles, where quantum mechanics applies.. General relativity and Quantum Mechanics ASSUME that the way particles behave in my local backyard is universally applicable everywhere in the universe..

If you are still objecting, then change "my local backyard" to a "quantum mechanics laboratory".. :)

The universe is under no obligation to do so just so our easily perturbed spirits can be kept less anxious and under the illusion reality follows classical physics. It does not.

No it does.. Classical physics is significantly accurate in large objects (larger than molecules etc.). Otherwise we wouldn't be able to place satellites in orbits around the Earth. Quantum Mechanical phenomena (like particle-wave duality of electrons in a double slit experiment etc.) don't apply to large objects..

In quantum mechanics all sorts of weird phenomena have been proven to exist.

All sort of proven weird phenomena have been proven to exist, not absolutely all sort of weird phenomena!! There should be a limit even in exaggerations, shouldn't there?

Deal with it.

I have a BS degree in physics (partially concentrated on particle physics and mainly on photonics) and never gave up researching until now..

I wonder how much you have dealt with it, would you like to share?

Lawrence Krauss, the cosmologist, has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th

I would love to discuss his opinions on the subject, if you bring any..

You completely missed my point from start to finish.

I don't think so.

I did not and am not claiming things can come from nothing.

What does this imply?

"Quantum vacuum, ever heard of that? Particles popping in and out of existence, ever heard of that?"

What about this one?

"Lawrence Krauss, the cosmologist, has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th"

This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that you were supporting Lawrence Krauss's claims/opinions on the origin of the universe.. Are you assuming that I don't know what Lawrence Krauss the cosmologist claims about the origin of the universe?

It is up to the people who assert the absoluteness of the statement "nothing can ever come nothing" to prove it, which they have yet to do. This is science 101, as you should know.

First of all, I personally, for the sake of discussion, don't claim that "nothing can ever come from nothing" is ABSOLUTELY true.. I am just saying that we have way much more evidences and reasons to believe that it is true, compared to ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AND REASON to believe otherwise.!!

Science 101:

In comparing two statements, one with more supporting evidence is preferred to be scientifically true (Note that "scientific truth" doesn't mean "fact" in absolute sense)..

Luckily, I don't need to wave my alleged academic credentials , which no one would be bothered to check anyway - in an attempt to lend credence to my point. That would be a fallacy.

Of course you don't need to. But when you use statements like "ever heard of it?", "Deal with it." etc. addressing me which imply that "have you knowledge of" or "you don't have credentials on, try to get.." etc., then I have full right to ask if you about your academic credentials to make sure whether you "ever heard of these subjects accurately" or "are you able to accurately understand the subjects you are talking about".. FYI

Sincerely!
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 1:34:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 1:20:28 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 12:58:05 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/19/2016 12:40:05 PM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:51:11 AM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:38:07 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:24:27 AM, Athomos wrote:
Please demonstrate that " Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an absolute true proposition that applies to everything not only in the universe but to the universe itself.

1. This is the most reasonable proposition.. Nothing comes from nothing!!!

2. We know nothing that contradicts the above proposition.

3. Try to understand what "nothing" is.. Then it will be self-explanatory as for why "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"..

Until such burden has been met the, there is no case.

There are billions of observations that even the slightest event such as a small motion necessarily has a cause.. Not a single observation or evidence exists to support the idea that anything could begin to exist from nothing / without anything causing it..

I can see you keep asserting the first postulate. That is not tantamount to showing it.
Quantum vacuum, ever heard of that? Particles popping in and out of existence, ever heard of that?

Of course I've heard of it..

1. What is a "quantum vacuum"? Is it "nothing"?

2. What causes the particle-antiparticle pairs appear and disappear in a quantum vacuum? We don't know.

To say that nothing causes them is a logical fallacy, namely Argument from Ignorance fallacy!!

This is the problem with looking at your backyard and thinking "hmmm, cabbages just don't pop into existence, do they? Ergo the universe can't possibly have."

This is the problem with looking at a quantum vacuum and observing the popping of this particles into existence and thinking "hmmm this particles pop into existence and I see/know no cause, do I? Ergo they are popping into existence out of nothing with no cause."

Hence, Argument from Ignorance Logical Fallacy!!!

General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively disproven the notion the Universe operates like your local backyard.

On the exact contrary.. General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively proven (assumed, if I were speaking scientifically) the notion the universe operates like my local backyard. As if I am hearing now you shouting your objections that I am wrong.. Let me explain.

My local backyard is made up of atoms and subatomic particles, where quantum mechanics applies.. General relativity and Quantum Mechanics ASSUME that the way particles behave in my local backyard is universally applicable everywhere in the universe..

If you are still objecting, then change "my local backyard" to a "quantum mechanics laboratory".. :)

The universe is under no obligation to do so just so our easily perturbed spirits can be kept less anxious and under the illusion reality follows classical physics. It does not.

No it does.. Classical physics is significantly accurate in large objects (larger than molecules etc.). Otherwise we wouldn't be able to place satellites in orbits around the Earth. Quantum Mechanical phenomena (like particle-wave duality of electrons in a double slit experiment etc.) don't apply to large objects..

In quantum mechanics all sorts of weird phenomena have been proven to exist.

All sort of proven weird phenomena have been proven to exist, not absolutely all sort of weird phenomena!! There should be a limit even in exaggerations, shouldn't there?

Deal with it.

I have a BS degree in physics (partially concentrated on particle physics and mainly on photonics) and never gave up researching until now..

I wonder how much you have dealt with it, would you like to share?

Lawrence Krauss, the cosmologist, has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th

I would love to discuss his opinions on the subject, if you bring any..

You completely missed my point from start to finish.

I don't think so.

I did not and am not claiming things can come from nothing.

What does this imply?

"Quantum vacuum, ever heard of that? Particles popping in and out of existence, ever heard of that?"

What about this one?

"Lawrence Krauss, the cosmologist, has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th"

This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that you were supporting Lawrence Krauss's claims/opinions on the origin of the universe.. Are you assuming that I don't know what Lawrence Krauss the cosmologist claims about the origin of the universe?

It is up to the people who assert the absoluteness of the statement "nothing can ever come nothing" to prove it, which they have yet to do. This is science 101, as you should know.

First of all, I personally, for the sake of discussion, don't claim that "nothing can ever come from nothing" is ABSOLUTELY true.. I am just saying that we have way much more evidences and reasons to believe that it is true, compared to ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AND REASON to believe otherwise.!!

Science 101:

In comparing two statements, one with more supporting evidence is preferred to be scientifically true (Note that "scientific truth" doesn't mean "fact" in absolute sense)..

Luckily, I don't need to wave my alleged academic credentials , which no one would be bothered to check anyway - in an attempt to lend credence to my point. That would be a fallacy.

Of course you don't need to. But when you use statements like "ever heard of it?", "Deal with it." etc. addressing me which imply that "have you knowledge of" or "you don't have credentials on, try to get.." etc., then I have full right to ask if you about your academic credentials to make sure whether you "ever heard of these subjects accurately" or "are you able to accurately understand the subjects you are talking about".. FYI

Sincerely!

Missing the point twice in a row does not rectify the error in its first instance.
Ah, Lawrence Kraus makes no definite claims about the origin of ten Universe. He did provide a theoretical framework which opens up new possibilities violating the local backyard paradigm.

Bottom line, The KCA desperately needs its first postulate to be established for a fact, which it hasn't been. Until something in the neighbourhood of that happens, discussing it remains useful as an ice breaker at highbrow cocktail parties.
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 2:50:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 1:34:09 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/19/2016 1:20:28 PM, ssadi wrote:
Please demonstrate that " Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an absolute true proposition that applies to everything not only in the universe but to the universe itself.

1. This is the most reasonable proposition.. Nothing comes from nothing!!!

2. We know nothing that contradicts the above proposition.

3. Try to understand what "nothing" is.. Then it will be self-explanatory as for why "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"..

Until such burden has been met the, there is no case.

There are billions of observations that even the slightest event such as a small motion necessarily has a cause.. Not a single observation or evidence exists to support the idea that anything could begin to exist from nothing / without anything causing it..

I can see you keep asserting the first postulate. That is not tantamount to showing it.
Quantum vacuum, ever heard of that? Particles popping in and out of existence, ever heard of that?

Of course I've heard of it..

1. What is a "quantum vacuum"? Is it "nothing"?

2. What causes the particle-antiparticle pairs appear and disappear in a quantum vacuum? We don't know.

To say that nothing causes them is a logical fallacy, namely Argument from Ignorance fallacy!!

This is the problem with looking at your backyard and thinking "hmmm, cabbages just don't pop into existence, do they? Ergo the universe can't possibly have."

This is the problem with looking at a quantum vacuum and observing the popping of this particles into existence and thinking "hmmm this particles pop into existence and I see/know no cause, do I? Ergo they are popping into existence out of nothing with no cause."

Hence, Argument from Ignorance Logical Fallacy!!!

General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively disproven the notion the Universe operates like your local backyard.

On the exact contrary.. General relativity and Quantum mechanics have conclusively proven (assumed, if I were speaking scientifically) the notion the universe operates like my local backyard. As if I am hearing now you shouting your objections that I am wrong.. Let me explain.

My local backyard is made up of atoms and subatomic particles, where quantum mechanics applies.. General relativity and Quantum Mechanics ASSUME that the way particles behave in my local backyard is universally applicable everywhere in the universe..

If you are still objecting, then change "my local backyard" to a "quantum mechanics laboratory".. :)

The universe is under no obligation to do so just so our easily perturbed spirits can be kept less anxious and under the illusion reality follows classical physics. It does not.

No it does.. Classical physics is significantly accurate in large objects (larger than molecules etc.). Otherwise we wouldn't be able to place satellites in orbits around the Earth. Quantum Mechanical phenomena (like particle-wave duality of electrons in a double slit experiment etc.) don't apply to large objects..

In quantum mechanics all sorts of weird phenomena have been proven to exist.

All sort of proven weird phenomena have been proven to exist, not absolutely all sort of weird phenomena!! There should be a limit even in exaggerations, shouldn't there?

Deal with it.

I have a BS degree in physics (partially concentrated on particle physics and mainly on photonics) and never gave up researching until now..

I wonder how much you have dealt with it, would you like to share?

Lawrence Krauss, the cosmologist, has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th

I would love to discuss his opinions on the subject, if you bring any..

You completely missed my point from start to finish.

I don't think so.

I did not and am not claiming things can come from nothing.

What does this imply?

"Quantum vacuum, ever heard of that? Particles popping in and out of existence, ever heard of that?"

What about this one?

"Lawrence Krauss, the cosmologist, has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th"

This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that you were supporting Lawrence Krauss's claims/opinions on the origin of the universe.. Are you assuming that I don't know what Lawrence Krauss the cosmologist claims about the origin of the universe?

It is up to the people who assert the absoluteness of the statement "nothing can ever come nothing" to prove it, which they have yet to do. This is science 101, as you should know.

First of all, I personally, for the sake of discussion, don't claim that "nothing can ever come from nothing" is ABSOLUTELY true.. I am just saying that we have way much more evidences and reasons to believe that it is true, compared to ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AND REASON to believe otherwise.!!

Science 101:

In comparing two statements, one with more supporting evidence is preferred to be scientifically true (Note that "scientific truth" doesn't mean "fact" in absolute sense)..

Luckily, I don't need to wave my alleged academic credentials , which no one would be bothered to check anyway - in an attempt to lend credence to my point. That would be a fallacy.

Of course you don't need to. But when you use statements like "ever heard of it?", "Deal with it." etc. addressing me which imply that "have you knowledge of" or "you don't have credentials on, try to get.." etc., then I have full right to ask if you about your academic credentials to make sure whether you "ever heard of these subjects accurately" or "are you able to accurately understand the subjects you are talking about".. FYI

Sincerely!

Missing the point twice in a row ...

Which is?

...does not rectify the error in its first instance.
Ah, Lawrence Kraus makes no definite claims about the origin of ten Universe.

Don't play with words man... He obviously does make claims about the origin of the universe, definite or not.. And you said that:

"...[Lawrence Krauss] has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th".

How would that be possible if he didn't even make any definite claim about the origin of the universe? Well, we all know about his book "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"..

He did provide a theoretical framework which opens up new possibilities violating the local backyard paradigm.

Possibilities? Like P1 of KCA? Don't contradict with yourself man.. You are asking me for proof for P1 to be the case, yet you are providing some claims made about some so-called possibilities (which are made with many unsupported assumptions) made by some theoretical physicists.. I am asking you to bring his "theoretical framework" here so that we discussed if it made sense... I am still waiting..

Bottom line, The KCA desperately needs its first postulate to be established for a fact, which it hasn't been. Until something in the neighbourhood of that happens, discussing it remains useful as an ice breaker at highbrow cocktail parties.

There is nothing like "establishing for a fact" in science. Should it also be ignored??

It seems you don't know scientific methodology and conclusions, do you?
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:16:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 2:50:47 PM, ssadi wrote:
(edited for brevity)


No, he makes no definite claims about the actual origin of our universe and it's simply sensational that in your defence you provided with the title of his opus. Just terrific.

The expression "for a fact" - as opposed to the more rigorous "with a high degree of probability" - was used colloquially. I would have thought that including it that paragraph that talks about high brown cocktails parties would be highly suggestive of that.
Apparently not.

You got this backwards.
What's being waited upon is evidence that "nothing can ever come from nothing", which is the postulate the KCA rests on. It should be of straightforward comprehension that until that day comes, KCA can't go anywhere.

Sure, some will tap dance colourfully, but the onus nonetheless remains firmly entrenched with those calling upon the KCA. Now, if you excuse me, I'll wait for someone to actually come forward with an effort to substantiate P1.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:17:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 2:50:47 PM, ssadi wrote:

No, he makes no definite claims about the actual origin of our universe and it's simply sensational that in your defence you provided with the title of his opus. Just terrific.

The expression "for a fact" - as opposed to the more rigorous "with a high degree of probability" - was used colloquially. I would have thought that including it that paragraph that talks about high brown cocktails parties would be highly suggestive of that.
Apparently not.

You got this backwards.
What's being waited upon is evidence that "nothing can ever come from nothing", which is the postulate the KCA rests on. It should be of straightforward comprehension that until that day comes, KCA can't go anywhere.

Sure, some will tap dance colourfully, but the onus nonetheless remains firmly entrenched with those calling upon the KCA. Now, if you excuse me, I'll wait for someone to actually come forward with an effort to substantiate P1.
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:23:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 4:06:03 AM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:46:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

This is where it gets wanky. That "must be" portion above is an assumption. Why must whatever gave arise to space/time and universe be intelligent?

The big bang theory isn't, in fact, based on observation. It is based largely on speculation. It is a largely untested hypothesis of generation for cosmology, but the evidence is circumstantial at best and certainly not indicative of a well-established scientific theory. It's more of a well-accepted theory as a concession for there being none better put forward by a respected scientist.

I'm not saying I support the speculations in the OP, but keep in mind that dark matter and dark energy were largely invented because observation DOESN'T MATCH the predictions of Big Bang Cosmology.

There is no evidence of dark matter or dark energy, scientists have effectively created a mathematical model for hypothetical non-detectable matte and energy in order to explain away a glaring observational anomaly in cosmological models for accelerated expansion of the universe.

Now don't get me wrong, they may have guessed right, but right now that's all it is. A guess. They don't want to abandon the model so many of them have invested their hearts and souls in, so they have invented a way to keep it alive.

I love science, but teaching that as fact this early in the game is blatant philosophical speculation and indicates a high probability of cognitive bias on the part of cosmologists.

I'm not certain what this has to do with my point that the leap from something caused the universe thus it has to be intelligent is an extremely large leap of faith.
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:24:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 8:46:23 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:46:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

This is where it gets wanky. That "must be" portion above is an assumption. Why must whatever gave arise to space/time and universe be intelligent?

I think the difficulty here is compounded as by "intelligent" I think is meant self aware, or sentient. Though, I am not really sure what intelligent really entails.

Regardless, why does a cause for the universe have to be aware or sentient? It is an awful large leap in logic and faith to assume that.
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:34:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:24:42 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 8:46:23 PM, Seagull wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:46:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

This is where it gets wanky. That "must be" portion above is an assumption. Why must whatever gave arise to space/time and universe be intelligent?

I think the difficulty here is compounded as by "intelligent" I think is meant self aware, or sentient. Though, I am not really sure what intelligent really entails.

Regardless, why does a cause for the universe have to be aware or sentient? It is an awful large leap in logic and faith to assume that.

I didn't mean it as a reply to you, I must have been quoting the wrong post. I meant to reply to the OP not your statement.

The argument about divine origins isn't of any interest to me. The simple fact is that it either was or wasn't and if it was then any speculation on the nature of the type of being capable of creating a universe of the size we see is pretty much the height of insanity as far as I'm concerned.

In the meantime, I'm more interested in finding out all I can about the universe. Created or not, that seems a bit more relevant to me. Also I like playing with models that don't require a creator but do explain the universe as a causative wavefront of self-reinforcing causality.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 1:05:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 5:04:41 PM, Seagull wrote:
Of the things debated in society, perhaps nothing is more hotly contested than the existence of a God. Over the course of time there have been many arguments made from many different angles. For example, an argument in favor of existence is the teleological argument also known as "fine tuning," or the "argument from design" argues that the universe is so organized as to suggest the necessity of a designer. (1) Likewise there are many arguments against the existence of a God; perhaps the most well know is the "problem of evil" which argues if there is an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being, he (or she) would know where evil is, have the power to destroy it, and being morally perfect would do so. Since evil exists, it is argued God must not. (2) Since stumbling across such arguments about God I have found myself fascinated by the arguments made and especially intrigued by the evolution that these arguments take over time. I would like to share a few thoughts on a specific argument in favor of God; The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The History of the Cosmological argument

Perhaps one of the oldest arguments for the existence of God, we can trace the cosmological argument at least as far back as to Aristotle who argued for a first cause. Notably, Thomas Aquinas presented a few different versions of this argument. I will reference two.

1st The argument from motion; essentially Aquinas argued that things move as a result of other movements. Aquinas believed an infinite regression to be unreasonable and thus concluded there must be a "prime mover." i.e. God.

2nd The argument from causation; in this case he argues essentially the same, that all things are caused and to avoid the problem of an infinite regression means there must be an uncaused first cause. i.e. God.

Both of these arguments have taken a great deal of criticism. I will briefly outline them here.

Criticism 1: The first criticism deals primarily with the identity of God. Even if you accept these arguments they do not make a case for a particular God, or in fact a singular God. The same argument could justify polytheism as theism. In addition, the arguments do not make the case of a sentient God. Thus the cosmological arguments don"t support the kind of personal God people profess to believe in or pray to.

Criticism 2: Thomas Aquinas rejected an infinite regress as possible, though so far as I can tell no case is made as to why.

Criticism 3: The arguments are themselves, self-defeating. If everything that moves is the result of another mover, or every cause the result of a causer, why is God an exception? If there are exceptions, we have no reason to accept the first premise of either argument.

This brings me to why I am fascinated by the KCA.

A brief summary of the KCA
(I borrowed the following from Tejeretics vs Kasmic debate.) (3)

Kasmic argued the following;

"P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

"Nihil fit ex nihilo" That is to say that nothing comes from nothing. Things do not just pop out of nowhere. Believing in magic performed by a magician is more practical than believing that out of nothing comes nothing. At least with a magician the rabbit pulled from the hat is claimed to have come from a hat as opposed to have just materialized. This first premise is rationally intuitive and a fundamental principle of science.

P2: The Universe began to exist

There is consensus in the scientific community that the universe is not eternal, that is to say has not always existed. Rather it is clear that the universe had an absolute beginning around thirteen billion years ago in the event known as the Big Bang. Thus the second premise is true.

As both P1 and P2 are supported it is logical to conclude,

C: The Universe had a cause

There must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."(2)

Thus we see that the KCA provides a compelling argument for the existence of God."
If you would like to see it presented via video, here is a link.

https://www.youtube.com...

KCA vs Cosmological Criticisms

We see that the KCA addresses some of the criticism of older cosmological arguments and ignores others.

The KCA does give some justification for a "personal" creator though I think it is still reasonable to say it does not argue for a specific God. It does not really seem to address infinite regression. What it really does in my opinion is give reasoning to why God would or could be the sole exception to the rule of causation.

Closing comment and a questions

Now that I have spent all this time writing this, I am at the end and don"t know what I was writing for haha. I guess I am curious if people find the KCA convincing? If you do, or don"t, I am curious as to what convinces you.

Sources

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(2) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(3) http://www.debate.org...

In the KCA both P1 and P2 are beyond the knowledge of humans and thus don't stand as being true. P1 is often phrased, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." In this example "everything" has been replaced with "whatever," but both are used the same way in this context so I will focus on the word everything since it can be transferred to whatever. Human being don't have knowledge of "everything." So they cannot claim to know that everything that comes into existence has a cause. I will concede it might be probable that is the case. But "probable" doesn't make P1 true. P1 falls because it claims knowledge that humans don't have. (I notice we humans like to pretend we know more that we do. P1 and P2 are examples of this)
P2 is the bigger fail. We have an information horizon problem. We cannot know what was before the big bang. That information isn't available to us. If we cannot know what was before the Big Bang, we cannot claim the BB was the beginning of the universe. There isn't a single human that exists know or has ever existed that has access to that information. We simply don't know if the universe (whatever that consists of) did have a beginning. P2, like P1 fails because it claims to know things humans don't know.
I suspect the universe is eternal. I don't think "Nothing" is logically consistent. I'll use my own formulation for this

P1 Anything that exists must be able to logically exist
P2 Nothing is logically inconsistent
P3 Therefore "nothing" cannot exist
P4 Therefore "something" must exist at all times
P5 The universe is eternal, because something must always exist
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 5:38:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:17:26 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:50:47 PM, ssadi wrote:


No, he makes no definite claims about the actual origin of our universe and it's simply sensational that in your defence you provided with the title of his opus. Just terrific.

Look, I know what he says and I know that he doesn't make "definite" claims, I also know that he just make claims based on unsupported and baseless assumptions. I clearly stated this which would unequivocally prove that I was not saying that he made definite claims..

It was you who implied that.. I am asking you that if he just pointed out some possibilities, then how would you conclude that "[he] has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th"? How would that be possible if you believe that he didn't make definite claims?

Here is the question: Isn't it possible that P1 was true? It is possible, yet you don't accept it and you say that it should be ignored in discussions until it is proven to be true. Then, immediately after that you bring the example of Lawrence Krauss's "possibilities" (in your own words) into the same discussion as a counter argument.. Isn't it contradictory to what you say about P1?

The expression "for a fact" - as opposed to the more rigorous "with a high degree of probability" - was used colloquially.

P1 is then true "with a high degree of probability"..

I would have thought that including it that paragraph that talks about high brown cocktails parties would be highly suggestive of that.

I am sorry, I don't know anything about "cocktail parties", it is may be why I didn't understand you.. :(

Apparently not.

Yes, apparently it "would" not "be highly suggestive of that", at least for me..

You got this backwards.
What's being waited upon is evidence that "nothing can ever come from nothing", which is the postulate the KCA rests on. It should be of straightforward comprehension that until that day comes, KCA can't go anywhere.

I will try to explain this in a separate post here, after you give answer to some of my questions..

Sure, some will tap dance colourfully, but the onus nonetheless remains firmly entrenched with those calling upon the KCA. Now, if you excuse me, I'll wait for someone to actually come forward with an effort to substantiate P1.

I will try to do it for you..

BTW, I really respect the way you think.. Although it is even exceeding boundaries and limits of "thinking out of the box", I respect the way you think and will try to provide evidences that proves P1..

But before that, can you please tell me:

1. What do you understand by "nothing"?
2. What do you think about the difference between possibility and probability?
3. How do we calculate the probability of something?
4. What is a "quantum vacuum"? I asked it before and still waiting for an answer..

Waiting for your response before providing you evidence for P1..
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 8:32:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 5:38:05 AM, ssadi wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:17:26 PM, Athomos wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:50:47 PM, ssadi wrote:


No, he makes no definite claims about the actual origin of our universe and it's simply sensational that in your defence you provided with the title of his opus. Just terrific.

Look, I know what he says and I know that he doesn't make "definite" claims, I also know that he just make claims based on unsupported and baseless assumptions. I clearly stated this which would unequivocally prove that I was not saying that he made definite claims..

It was you who implied that.. I am asking you that if he just pointed out some possibilities, then how would you conclude that "[he] has shot a hole the size of a galaxy in th"? How would that be possible if you believe that he didn't make definite claims?

Here is the question: Isn't it possible that P1 was true? It is possible, yet you don't accept it and you say that it should be ignored in discussions until it is proven to be true. Then, immediately after that you bring the example of Lawrence Krauss's "possibilities" (in your own words) into the same discussion as a counter argument.. Isn't it contradictory to what you say about P1?

The expression "for a fact" - as opposed to the more rigorous "with a high degree of probability" - was used colloquially.

P1 is then true "with a high degree of probability"..

I would have thought that including it that paragraph that talks about high brown cocktails parties would be highly suggestive of that.

I am sorry, I don't know anything about "cocktail parties", it is may be why I didn't understand you.. :(

Apparently not.

Yes, apparently it "would" not "be highly suggestive of that", at least for me..

You got this backwards.
What's being waited upon is evidence that "nothing can ever come from nothing", which is the postulate the KCA rests on. It should be of straightforward comprehension that until that day comes, KCA can't go anywhere.

I will try to explain this in a separate post here, after you give answer to some of my questions..

Sure, some will tap dance colourfully, but the onus nonetheless remains firmly entrenched with those calling upon the KCA. Now, if you excuse me, I'll wait for someone to actually come forward with an effort to substantiate P1.

I will try to do it for you..

BTW, I really respect the way you think.. Although it is even exceeding boundaries and limits of "thinking out of the box", I respect the way you think and will try to provide evidences that proves P1..

But before that, can you please tell me:

1. What do you understand by "nothing"?
2. What do you think about the difference between possibility and probability?
3. How do we calculate the probability of something?
4. What is a "quantum vacuum"? I asked it before and still waiting for an answer..

Waiting for your response before providing you evidence for P1..

You don't have to stall, you know. Please get on with the program and proceed with the demonstration.

Obliged.