Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

What is the Kalaam cosmological argument, plz

SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 2:16:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 1:04:01 AM, YeshuaBought wrote:
I heard of it, but don't know what it is.

Wikipedia has a lovely Article on the kalam cosmological argument. Essentially the argument states that all things that came to exist have a cause and the universe came to exist so it must have a cause. It further argues that this cause must be a sentient universe creator which always existed. The problem with this line of reasoning is that a) we cannot know with certainty that the universe came to be in the way that William Lane Craig possits and b) that we cannot know if the cause of the universe was sentient or that it always existed.

It also is unable to endorse any single religion on the strength of the argument itself and so does not help you determine which of the thousands of religions is actually correct on its claims unless the person offeringt the argument commits a black and white fallacy.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 2:28:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 2:16:31 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 6/18/2018 1:04:01 AM, YeshuaBought wrote:
I heard of it, but don't know what it is.

Wikipedia has a lovely Article on the kalam cosmological argument. Essentially the argument states that all things that came to exist have a cause and the universe came to exist so it must have a cause. It further argues that this cause must be a sentient universe creator which always existed. The problem with this line of reasoning is that a) we cannot know with certainty that the universe came to be in the way that William Lane Craig possits and b) that we cannot know if the cause of the universe was sentient or that it always existed.

It also is unable to endorse any single religion on the strength of the argument itself and so does not help you determine which of the thousands of religions is actually correct on its claims unless the person offeringt the argument commits a black and white fallacy.

In fact, as I understand it, the argument ends with "therefore the Universe must have a cause". The adding of an agent as that cause was totally post hoc and nit suggested by the original argument.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 2:32:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 2:28:57 AM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 6/18/2018 2:16:31 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 6/18/2018 1:04:01 AM, YeshuaBought wrote:
I heard of it, but don't know what it is.

Wikipedia has a lovely Article on the kalam cosmological argument. Essentially the argument states that all things that came to exist have a cause and the universe came to exist so it must have a cause. It further argues that this cause must be a sentient universe creator which always existed. The problem with this line of reasoning is that a) we cannot know with certainty that the universe came to be in the way that William Lane Craig possits and b) that we cannot know if the cause of the universe was sentient or that it always existed.

It also is unable to endorse any single religion on the strength of the argument itself and so does not help you determine which of the thousands of religions is actually correct on its claims unless the person offeringt the argument commits a black and white fallacy.

In fact, as I understand it, the argument ends with "therefore the Universe must have a cause". The adding of an agent as that cause was totally post hoc and nit suggested by the original argument.

Indeed an trying to prove that something must exist without a cause by arguing that nothing can exist without a cause is a circular argument.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 2,625
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2018 5:48:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 1:04:01 AM, YeshuaBought wrote:
I heard of it, but don't know what it is.

Lane Craig leverages the argument well in many debates, you can easily find these on youtube.

The fact is that this (and similar) arguments go to the heart of epistemology.

If the universe is uncaused, has existed for eternity then by definition it's presence cannot have a scientific explanation (aka theory) since scientific theories are always expressed in terms of physical quantities.

So be careful because adopting the view that the universe is uncaused is an admission that science cannot explain the universe, something theists have no problem with.
Stronn
Posts: 683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2018 4:25:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2018 5:48:57 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 6/18/2018 1:04:01 AM, YeshuaBought wrote:
I heard of it, but don't know what it is.

Lane Craig leverages the argument well in many debates, you can easily find these on youtube.

The fact is that this (and similar) arguments go to the heart of epistemology.

If the universe is uncaused, has existed for eternity then by definition it's presence cannot have a scientific explanation (aka theory) since scientific theories are always expressed in terms of physical quantities.

So be careful because adopting the view that the universe is uncaused is an admission that science cannot explain the universe, something theists have no problem with.

The biggest problem with this line of reasoning, and that used in the Kalaam cosmological argument, is that causality is not well understood, certainly not well enough to make blanket statements about an eternal universe being inexplicable by science.
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2018 5:08:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2018 5:48:57 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 6/18/2018 1:04:01 AM, YeshuaBought wrote:
I heard of it, but don't know what it is.

Lane Craig leverages the argument well in many debates, you can easily find these on youtube.

The fact is that this (and similar) arguments go to the heart of epistemology.

If the universe is uncaused, has existed for eternity then by definition it's presence cannot have a scientific explanation (aka theory) since scientific theories are always expressed in terms of physical quantities.

So be careful because adopting the view that the universe is uncaused is an admission that science cannot explain the universe, something theists have no problem with.

You miss the obvious. If the universe is uncaused and eternal then there is no need of an explanation for its origin. It becomes superfluous since there is no origin.

Btw, theists "have no problem" because they only assert. Assertions can be dismissed out of hand.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.