Kalam cosmological argument

[Mechanist1]

@Mefiante post:97

@Teleological post:47

I think you need to explain how it poses a problem in terms of Craig’s argument about causality.

If there are uncaused events, examples of which I gave, then the premiss “Everything is caused” is quite plainly not universally valid owing to the presence of such exceptions. I’d’ve thought – wrongly, as it turns out – that it doesn’t require a great deal of cerebral acuity to fathom this, especially from those with a propensity for arguing in absolutes.

The argument is “everything that begins to exist has a cause” and not “everything is caused”. No need to erect a straw man.

Also, your examples for uncaused events are not convincing enough to conclude that the events are not caused by an indeterminate or unknown or unusual cause. As is, your argument seems to be an argument from ignorance which is the same thing IDers and cretinists are doing.

@Mefiante post:97

@Teleological post:47

More importantly, it is the person that tries to attack a positive claim to actually understand what the positive claim is about, and in this case, you need to show that your understanding of the principle of causality as per the Kalam argument and Craig’s understanding are compatible in order to prevent you from building and burning straw men.

… and, by implication, you seem to contend that my understanding of Craig’s argument is deficient. Be so kind as to elucidate, in adequate detail, just where and how you feel my conception of it fails.

How is your understanding of Craig’s argument not deficient when (look at the highlighted piece below)…

@Mefiante post:97

@Teleological post:47

Please, inform us about Craig’s understanding of causality as per the argument and how some phenomena are supposed to pose “grave” problems.

His exposition of this aspect is far too vague to know precisely what he means, which is why I raised the issues concerning causality in the first place. Please feel free at any time to chip in with what you understand Craig to mean, exactly, when he speaks of “cause” – i.e., which element(s) of the Aristotelian hierarchy; does “cause” encompass the entirety of prior contingencies, matter, effects and events that resulted in the thing under scrutiny; or is “cause” to be read simply as the single event most directly responsible for a phenomenon; if none of these, what then?

… When you raise the issue about causality, it does not exactly show that you know what Craig refers to when he talks about causality. And I agree, Craig needs to be more clear what exactly he is talking about when he talks about causality because people’s definitions and understanding of causality differ.

@Mefiante post:97

@Teleological post:54

There is obviously a reason for you putting “nothing” in quotation marks.

Yes, there is, namely a want of what “nothing” means physically. Or, for that matter, what background “pure nothingness in the proper sense that it does not even have the potential to be something” is to be assessed against. Virtual particles appear and disappear spontaneously in a physical vacuum. Does the latter constitute “nothing?”

I don’t think quantum vacuums or physical vacuums constitute nothing. They are still systems with laws with the potentiality to generate virtual and real particles.

@Mefiante post:97

If so, how? If not, what does? Existence is binary. There are no degrees of it. Either something exists or it does not.

I disagree. I am of the opinion that being is binary. Either there is being or non-being, with no degrees between it. Non-being is nothing, nothing in the sense of not even having the potential to be being or to exist. Being describes existing things and existing things exist either potentially or actually.

@Mefiante post:97

@Teleological post:54

It looks like you do not want to commit yourself to the obvious logical fallacy that some things come from pure nothingness in the proper sense that it does not even have the potential to be something (like virtual particles).
Unless of course you believe virtual particles are nothing (in the proper sense of the word) as well, in which case you need to be a bit of explaining to do.

Are you saying virtual particles do “not even have the potential to be something?” If so, you are quite wrong. Virtual particles have the potential of becoming real, which is how Hawking radiation comes to be. Nor are they themselves “nothing (in the proper sense of the word)” – whatever that’s supposed to mean – because QM wouldn’t work without them.

No, I am merely probing to see if you believe things can come from nothing. The proper sense of the word of course meaning that true nothingness does not even have the potential to be something. And as you rightly pointed out, physical vacuums are not nothing in the proper sense of the word since they still have the potential to generate some things, like virtual particles, which in turn has the potential to be real.

[Mechanist1]

@cyghost post:100

@Teleological post:99

We are (and other things) in a space-time continuum.

Indeed. Then what is it with this fucked up “things that exist without time or things that do not exist in time”?

3+9=12 does not need time to exist, it is a timeless truth, it exists without time and does not need time to exist.

@cyghost post:100

Please elaborate on what you mean with begin to exist.

Actual, physical things begin to exist at some point in time. A virtual particle does not actually exist in a quantum vacuum, it only exist potentially. The moment it is an actual particle, is the moment it begins to exist actually.

[cyghost]

@Teleological post:102

3+9=12 does not need time to exist, it is a timeless truth, it exists without time and does not need time to exist.

That seems like a nice ex recto assertion. Did it hurt? You can’t think or write or say 3 + 9 = 12 without time. It is absolutely fucking meaningless without time. LoL at timeless truth. Pure comedy gold mate.

So. Does 3 + 9 = 12 exist or not? Actually or potentially?

Actual, physical things begin to exist at some point in time.

Examples?

[Mechanist1]

@cyghost post:103

Actual, physical things begin to exist at some point in time.

Examples?

If you don’t quotemine like that you might actually see it lol.

[Mefiante]

@Teleological post:101

The argument is “everything that begins to exist has a cause” and not “everything is caused”. No need to erect a straw man.

This is evasive pedantry that avoids addressing the point I made: If something can be shown to “begin existing” causelessly, then the named premiss still fails.

@Teleological post:101

Also, your examples for uncaused events are not convincing enough to conclude that the events are not caused by an indeterminate or unknown or unusual cause.

Then it falls on you to be considerably clearer on how we are to understand “cause” because with this kind of slickness any argument can be dismissed as “an argument from ignorance” by drilling down far enough.

@Teleological post:101

How is your understanding of Craig’s argument not deficient when (look at the highlighted piece below)…

…

… When you raise the issue about causality, it does not exactly show that you know what Craig refers to when he talks about causality.

But that’s exactly my point: How is anyone’s understanding of Craig’s argument, including your own, to be assessed if we don’t properly know the precise terms of reference to use because Craig hasn’t specified them adequately? Or is it once again simply a case of interpreting agreement with the argument as a proper understanding of it, and disagreement as an insufficient understanding?

@Teleological post:101

I disagree. I am of the opinion that being is binary. Either there is being or non-being, with no degrees between it. Non-being is nothing, nothing in the sense of not even having the potential to be being or to exist. Being describes existing things and existing things exist either potentially or actually.

Then it falls on you to clear up the difference between “being” (as an objective fact, rather than a subjective experience) and “existence” because otherwise you have merely repeated that which I wrote, leaving it a mystery as to why you say that you disagree.

@Teleological post:101

The proper sense of the word of course meaning that true nothingness does not even have the potential to be something.

So is there then any way of identifying “true nothingness” independently and on its own terms? If so, how exactly?

'Luthon64

[Lilli]

I think this argument has run away from me and I don’t understand what you people are getting at anymore :-[ Let’s recap:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

I still think this is a major assumption to make, but I (also) can't think of an example of something physical that exists that has absolutely no cause. Anyone else have any ideas?

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Says who? If the woowoo argument that god exists outside of time and is eternal and all that jazz, then what makes him so special? can't we logically assume that there is a [i]possibility[/i] that the universe has always been there in some form or another?

Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists.

I'm not even going to comment on the last 3 statements, because I got stuck at the first 2. :-[

[Mechanist1]

@Mefiante post:105

@Teleological post:101

The argument is “everything that begins to exist has a cause” and not “everything is caused”. No need to erect a straw man.

This is evasive pedantry that avoids addressing the point I made: If something can be shown to “begin existing” causelessly, then the named premiss still fails.

You claimed to have given examples that will make the premise false. The examples don’t make a case for events to be uncaused and appeals to our igorance about indeterminancy or unusual or unknown causes.

@Mefiante post:105

@Teleological post:101

Also, your examples for uncaused events are not convincing enough to conclude that the events are not caused by an indeterminate or unknown or unusual cause.

Then it falls on you to be considerably clearer on how we are to understand “cause” because with this kind of slickness any argument can be dismissed as “an argument from ignorance” by drilling down far enough.

It falls on you as well since you are making the claim that certain events are causeless.

@Mefiante post:105

@Teleological post:101

How is your understanding of Craig’s argument not deficient when (look at the highlighted piece below)…

…

… When you raise the issue about causality, it does not exactly show that you know what Craig refers to when he talks about causality.

But that’s exactly my point: How is anyone’s understanding of Craig’s argument, including your own, to be assessed if we don’t properly know the precise terms of reference to use because Craig hasn’t specified them adequately? Or is it once again simply a case of interpreting agreement with the argument as a proper understanding of it, and disagreement as an insufficient understanding?

Like I said, Craig needs to specify what he means with “cause”. You will also have to specify what your understanding of causality is when you make the claim about causeless events.

@Mefiante post:105

@Teleological post:101

I disagree. I am of the opinion that being is binary. Either there is being or non-being, with no degrees between it. Non-being is nothing, nothing in the sense of not even having the potential to be being or to exist. Being describes existing things and existing things exist either potentially or actually.

Then it falls on you to clear up the difference between “being” (as an objective fact, rather than a subjective experience) and “existence” because otherwise you have merely repeated that which I wrote, leaving it a mystery as to why you say that you disagree.

You: Existence or non-exstence.
Me: Being or non-being.
Non being = nothingness without potential to be something or being.
Being = Potential existence or actual existence.

@Mefiante post:105

@Teleological post:101

The proper sense of the word of course meaning that true nothingness does not even have the potential to be something.

So is there then any way of identifying “true nothingness” independently and on its own terms? If so, how exactly?

'Luthon64

I don’t think so, I think it is a philosophical concept.

[cyghost]

@Teleological post:104

If you don’t quotemine like that you might actually see it lol.

Fuck you. I didn’t quote mine you. Do you actually know what a quote mine is?

Give examples of “Actual, physical things begin to exist at some point in time”. Stop evading.

“Begin to exist” it would seem is a nebulous philosophical phrase that can mean whatever these masters of deception wants it to mean. They cannot even get one of their premises correct but wants to hold this up as a shining example of arguing for the existence of some deity. Jesus wept.

[Mechanist1]

Quote the whole sentence (not your “half quote” please) and ask the question again ROFL.

[cyghost]

@Teleological post:102

Actual, physical things begin to exist at some point in time. A virtual particle does not actually exist in a quantum vacuum, it only exist potentially. The moment it is an actual particle, is the moment it begins to exist actually.

roll on floor laugh out loud

That takes balls mate. The particle that actually shows the “has a cause of its existence” of the “Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence” to be bogus? What the hell are you trying to? My job?

Let us ignore virtual particles for the moment because I know at least one thing about them: you understand them less than I do.

Make me understand “begin to exist” better so that I can consider it as part of your premise.

[Mechanist1]

@cyghost post:110

@Teleological post:102

Actual, physical things begin to exist at some point in time. A virtual particle does not actually exist in a quantum vacuum, it only exist potentially. The moment it is an actual particle, is the moment it begins to exist actually.

That takes balls mate. The particle that actually shows the “has a cause of its existence” of the “Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence” to be bogus?

How so, and let’s stick with the example to see if you indeed understand it more than I do.

[Brian]

i’m just a simple skeptic and reading/listening to the nature and content of the arguments proposed, come to the conclusion that egos are interfering with good argumentation (no names no packdrill).

Let’s refute Craig’s argument with solid counter-argument. Reading the views of Mitchell le Blanc (http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-failure-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/) he states inter alia:
1.ONE god created the Universe…why not several? Craig’s argument fails in this.
2. His argument rests on the supposition that the Universe was created from nothing (ex nihilo)and therefore the universe is not eternal. Le Blanc quotes from Michael Martin: One possibility is that the creator or creators of the Universe created it out of something that existed in some timeless realm. Another is that the material existed from eternity and that the creator or creators took this and formed the universe at a particular moment and, with it, causality and change.”
Therefore causality and change are presumed to have had a beginning?? a non sequitur.
3.He rejects Craig’s assumption of personal causation in favour of non-personal and timeless causation but which create time
4. He then discusses potential and actual infinity (and naturally lost me in the process) but quoting Martin again concludes that: “…even if the universe has beginning in time, in the light of recently proposed cosmological theories this beginning may be uncaused. Despite Craig’s claim that theories postulating the Universe ‘could pop into existence uncaused’ are incapable of ’sincere affirmation,’ such similar theories are in fact being taken seriously by scientists.

Excuse my ignorance of the philosophical/scientific niceties…but I haven’t seen any discussion of the counter-argument proposed by le Blanc or Martin…is there a reason for this?

[Brian]

I likes what James Still (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/kalam.html) says as well:“However, Craig wrongly presupposes an ontological view of time that conflates timeless eternity with temporal infinity—an infinity that is supposed to be a priori impossible in the kalam argument. In other words, if the super dense pellet exists “from eternity” how can it “wait for all eternity” before producing its explosion? In a relational view of time, the universe’s existence from the first moment is its existence from eternity; thus, Craig’s questions only make sense from a realist view of time. Yet, we have already seen that Craig relies upon a relational view of time in his argument to prove that the universe cannot be infinite in time. The kalam argument becomes entangled in this conflated notion of eternity when it argues that God was a particularizer who freely chose to create the universe in time.”

[cyghost]

@Teleological post:111

How so, and let’s stick with the example to see if you indeed understand it more than I do.

What causes virtual particles to begin to exist?

[rwenzori]

@Brian post:112

i’m just a simple skeptic and reading/listening to the nature and content of the arguments proposed, come to the conclusion that egos are interfering with good argumentation (no names no packdrill).

There is a lot of history.

[rwenzori]

I’m really getting into this metaphysical stuffs!

The Terminal Proof that God is Just a Passing Fad

1. All good things come to an end. This is self-evident and quite irrefutable.

2. God is good, by definition, and 'coz the words sound alike.

3. Therefore, God will come to an end, and is thus not eternal, infinite, and all that, and so can’t really be God.

4. Therefore, God does not exist.

Beat that, theist suckers!

[Peter_Grant]

Sigh. Guess no one likes my suicidal exploding deity creation theory.

[Mefiante]

@Teleological post:107

You claimed to have given examples that will make the premise false. The examples don’t make a case for events to be uncaused and appeals to our igorance about indeterminancy or unusual or unknown causes.

They absolutely do in the physicist’s conception of “cause.” We cannot in any reliable way procure a virtual particle, or prevent its procurement, at whim. Ditto a radioactive decay event, notwithstanding AZE. If you believe otherwise, I very strongly urge you to publish a paper on this marvellous physical causality that transcends Heisenberg uncertainty. The physics community will be eternally grateful for the no-doubt profound insights it would facilitate. As for being an argument predicated on “igorance [sic] about indeterminancy [sic],” I recommend – again strongly – that you investigate the finer points of Bell’s Theorem. If you wish to challenge the physicist’s model of causation as inadequate you then also have a duty to suggest something better because, as it already stands, physics really, really works.

@Teleological post:107

It falls on you as well since you are making the claim that certain events are causeless.

First, see the paragraph immediately above for why the claim is eminently sustainable. Second, tu quoque is hardly a satisfactory answer to a perfectly legitimate request for clarification.

@Teleological post:107

You will also have to specify what your understanding of causality is when you make the claim about causeless events.

Observing the same effect arising repeatably from essentially the same stimulus, subject to essentially the same conditions with uniform consistency. Now, once more: How is anyone’s understanding of Craig’s argument, including your own, to be assessed if we don’t properly know the precise terms of reference to use because Craig hasn’t specified them adequately? That in itself points to an ill-formulated argument, and an ill-formulated argument can hold no persuasive sway. But maybe you’d care to specify your own take on causality that would save the argument by pulling it into a more rigorous setting.

@Teleological post:107

You: Existence or non-exstence.
Me: Being or non-being.
Non being = nothingness without potential to be something or being.
Being = Potential existence or actual existence.

How does that change anything at all? This looks just like another semantic sidestep. If potential existence can never be realised, then it is in all respects indistinguishable from non-existence. If it can, then it must conceivably do so at some point. Virtual particles become physically real in the Hawking mechanism. If they are excluded from QM interactions for having non-being (or non-existence), then the models become wildly inaccurate.

@Teleological post:107

I don’t think so, I think [“true nothingness”] is a philosophical concept.

… in which case it cannot say anything useful about actual reality, i.e. what has existence (or being, if you like) and what doesn’t. But we are examining various possible ontogenies of the real, physically existent universe that we are a part of. Consequently, you have excluded – by fiat, it should be noted – the possible physical existence (or being, if you like) of “true nothingness” and thereby shown up the absurdity of trying to talk sensibly about that notion. It is, in short, a non-functional rhetorical device. Therefore, existence (or being, if you like) itself must have existed (or been, if you like) for all eternity, whether actually or potentially. Now, in case it’s not obvious, the question immediately arises what possible reason consigns this inevitability to a transcendent realm, variously a non-physical one.

'Luthon64

[Mefiante]

Auto-destructing and self-reinventing deities are, I am sorry to say, a penny to the pound. History is replete with them, even if the auto-destruction is triggered by any of several internal contradictions. On the other hand, rwenzori’s terminal goodness proof has a coherence that it would be conspicuously foolish to dismiss lightly…

'Luthon64

[Peter_Grant]

@Mefiante post:119

Auto-destructing and self-reinventing deities are, I am sorry to say, a penny to the pound. History is replete with them, even if the auto-destruction is triggered by any of several internal contradictions.

Mine’s way cooler though :P, it covers every possible interpretation of “caused to exist”. Even if one accepts this cosmological argument it still leads inevitably to atheism.

@Mefiante post:119

On the other hand, rwenzori’s terminal goodness proof has a coherence that it would be conspicuously foolish to dismiss lightly…

'Luthon64

It does make a lot more sense than the cosmological argument ;D, but I still find “God is dead” way more satisfying than “God will die”.