Muslim Philosophers Objections to The Kalam Argument

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nyarlathotep's picture
P1 - the universe is

P1 - the universe is contingent
P2- whatever is contingent has a cause
C1- therefore, the universe has a cause
that conclusions is trivial valid, the real question is: is it sound?

edited to add:
You might notice, how every term is laid out in a premise before it is used to make a conclusion. How you aren't required to sneak anything extra in later; you haven't left any gaps. Or in other words, if P1 and P2 are true, we can be sure that C1 is true. This is how all of your "proofs" should be.

Peripatetic's picture
nothing satisfies you.

nothing satisfies you.

TIME MAN's picture
Is contingent an accident or

Is contingent an accident or dependent upon? Nyarlathotep is the universe an accident or dependent upon a cause? Sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity are great definitions for you. You need to learn the language and stop pretending to be a scientist. You do not understand reason or logic in any way. Pretending to be intelligent, by using big words you don't understand, exposes your lack of intelligence. Your not objective. You lack the ability to see facts objectively. Objectivity is required for intelligent existence, and you lack both objectivity and intelligence. If you are intelligent, look up the simple words; existence and being. Objective reality is required in both fact and state to be intelligent. I told you to look up those words before but you are stubborn, ignorant and therefore stupid. You barely can read, read the dictionary moron.

Nyarlathotep's picture
TIME MAN - is the universe an

TIME MAN - is the universe an accident or dependent upon a cause?

Again, why only two choices? It seems there are lots of other options not covered by those two choices. So how is this not a false dichotomy?

xenoview's picture
time man

time man
Why are you trolling Nyarlathotep? You do know that trolling is against the forum rules?

LogicFTW's picture
Universe is another word for

Universe is another word for everything? Right?
Your use for contingent is "dependent on for existence" right?

So, subtracting out big words for readability.

Everything is dependent on for existing.
whatever is dependent on for existing has a cause
Therefore, everything has a cause.

.
The first premises makes no sense when put that way. Everything is dependent on what? (For existing.) You can't say cause, that is premises 2.

Perhaps my looked up definition of contingent is in error?

What is wrong with having no base reason or cause, everything just is? Or for reasons we have not figured out yet?

Peripatetic's picture
The first premise simply

The first premise simply means that the essence of a contingent being does not necessitate its existence, it could exist or not, nothing about it can justify why it exists. So, you would directly infer that its cause must be external to it.
what does make no sense about that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is wrong with having no base reason or cause, everything just is?"

What is wrong with saying this statement is so wrong for no reasons, it's just wrong?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Or for reasons we have not figured out yet?"

this is exactly what the argument concludes, that the universe has a cause.

LogicFTW's picture
Precisely define your use of

Precisely define your use of the word contingent in this usage please. I can look it up, but I do not know how you are using the word, and which definition of the word you are using.

.
There is nothing wrong with your statement of: "this statement is so wrong for no reasons, it's just wrong?" We can both accept that as your opinion you did not try to support it or say your opinion is the correct one. If you wanted to say being being wrong about my statement is what proves your god, then you would have to back it up.
But you also did not answer my original question: "What is wrong with having no base reason or cause, everything just is?"

Yes, your argument concludes the universe has a cause. But in this sort of logical procedure, both premise one and premise two must also be found to be correct. I challenged your premises of: there has to be a cause. I do not believe everything has to have a cause, especially if something was created outside of our current universe, before this universe. We just currently understand everything in this universe that we understand so far, must have a proceeding action to set it off.

.
In short, creating an idea of an entity that is outside of all: reasoning, logic, and rules we have found so far, to explain what we do not yet fully understand. And then, using the very rules/logic/etc that entity "is not bound to" as a way to logically explain this entities existence is silly. I can use such a thought process to "prove" or "disprove" anything and everything.

Peripatetic's picture
"I do not believe everything

"I do not believe everything has to have a cause"

I did not say nor have i ever maintained that everything must have a cause, i said contingent things must have a cause. or as Muslim philosophers would put it, Contingency is the reason why a thing needs a cause

A contingent being: is a being that its essence does not necessitate its existence, its essence is neutral with respect to existence. considered in itself, it might exist or not. neither its essence necessitates its existence nor precludes it.
So, in order for it to exist there must be a cause that intervened and preponderate its existence. and that cause must be necessary i.e its essence necessitates its existence for otherwise then it couldn't be existent in the first place to serve as a cause and waiting for a necessary existent to preponderate its existence just like all contingent things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"especially if something was created outside of our current universe, before this universe."

who said anything about a thing being created outside the universe? and i don't see how the inside-and-outside Or before-and-after universe objection applies to the argument? it's just irrelevant, all these things are contingent no matter where/when it starts to exist. it's about their essences not about the time or place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"creating an idea of an entity that is outside of all: reasoning, logic, and rules we have found so far, to explain what we do not yet fully understand"

I did not create such an entity I deduced it.

LogicFTW's picture
Okay using your definition in

Okay using your definition in your original:

P1 - the universe is contingent
P2- whatever is contingent has a cause
C1- therefore, the universe has a cause

Lets paste in a shortened but hopefully the same definition of a "contingent being" that you can agree upon. I will allow you to keep universe instead of the word "everything" (I consider the universe to be "everything" by the way.)

P1 - the universe is "Something that does not exist in and of itself but depends for its existence upon some other being."
P2- whatever is "Something that does not exist in and of itself but depends for its existence upon some other being" has a cause
C1- therefore, the universe has a cause

I argue the validity of your first premises.

I say the universe does not necessarily have to be: "Something that does not exist in and of itself but depends for its existence upon some other being." We have no way to prove that it has to be contingent, no way to disprove it either, we simply do not know. A more accurate statement based on human kind's collective knowledge is:

P1 - the universe is "we do not know" if it is contingent or not
P2- whatever is contingent has a cause -- this is fine, just using word definitions here.
C1- therefore, "we do not know" if universe has a cause.

Peripatetic's picture
the universe is indeed

the universe is indeed contingent, the mind judges that it could not have been existed and could cease to exist, it's admissible in the mind to say that the universe could not have been existed without contradiction. the mere conceptualization of its essence does not tell us something about its existence, it does not include its existence.

the universe is nothing without its parts, it's complex/composite of its parts/units, and what needs/lacks/depends on its parts IS indeed contingent.

we see objects in the world starting to exist and ceasing to exist, and what its parts starting and ceasing to exist i.e contingent, as a whole, would not be necessary. it's like saying the parts of a house needs to be built but the house as a whole doesn't.

LogicFTW's picture
the universe is indeed

the universe is indeed contingent,

I assume you support this with the rest you write. (we shall see!)

the mind judges that it could not have been existed and could cease to exist, it's admissible in the mind to say that the universe could not have been existed without contradiction.

- Sure a mind can judge that, my mind also sees the possibility that the universe at one point did not exsist and may cease to exsist at one point in the future. Do I accept that as 100% the only possibility? No. because I have seen no evidence for that yet, I assume when you say "it" you mean universe.
- I agree it is "admissible" to the mind to say what ever you want. It is admissible to the mind I have 3 arms, its an unsupported idea presented to the mind, but it is admissible.

So far I see: you are saying the universe is contingent because you think it is, it is possible for you to consider the possibility that it is contingent. Because I possibly consider the possibility that Santa Claus is real does not make it real.

the mere conceptualization of its essence does not tell us something about its existence, it does not include its existence.

I assume again that "it" is the universe. I consider my self at least: "above average" when it comes to understanding the written word and I struggle to understand precisely what you are trying to say here. I can only guess what you are trying to say here is: "The simple idea of the universe, (as the idea thought up by human brain,) does not help us with defining or proving the universe in anyway, because its only an idea. <= I happen to agree.

the universe is nothing without its parts, it's complex/composite of its parts/units, and what needs/lacks/depends on its parts IS indeed contingent.

-I agree, you cannot have a universe if has a complete lack of any parts, then we are just talking about nothing. If a quarter of the universe suddenly winked out of existence, we would still have a universe, even if 99 percent of it was gone, there would still be a universe, greatly changed, sure but it would still be the universe. We could double it too. Same thing with your house example. We could subtract out rooms, gut out the plumbing etc, it would still be a "house" just one that lacks plumbing and additional rooms. I suppose if you removed walls and a roof, what is remaining would not be defined as a house, maybe a cave?
- I can agree all parts within the universe are contingent, it follows the rules of the universe. Chemistry/physics, atomic energy study etc all show everything has to have a cause. It looks like that cause is ultimately the big bang. BUT: the big bang we do not know if it has to have a cause. It did not occur "within" the universe and it's rules. The rule that everything has to have a cause or be "contingent." We do not know applies to before/outside the universe. I said this before, and you keep dismissing it. When we talk about the creation of the universe, the "rule of contingent" no longer necessarily applies. It might, it might not, we do not know because we can not study this "before or outside" the universe all we can study is the current visible universe, (limited by the speed of light.) We can not even hypothesis or theorize the "before" we have absolutely nothing to build a hypothesis or theory on other than our very limited imagination, (limited in the area of something we never observed or experinced.)

we see objects in the world starting to exist and ceasing to exist, and what its parts starting and ceasing to exist i.e contingent, as a whole, would not be necessary.

Uh, that goes against your own contingent argument. And the rules of the universe, nothing is created nor destroyed, within this universe, things just change states, at least that's the prevailing popular theory so far backed by evidence. (Some dark energy stuff humans are looking into now may change this popular theory if we want to include dark matter/energy as part of the universe.) I also do not see how this relates to you supporting your assertion that the universe is indeed contingent.

it's like saying the parts of a house needs to be built but the house as a whole doesn't.

I think I get what you are trying to say here, but the house analogy does not work here. I think an analogy of what I am trying to say is: When playing a game of chess, every piece is important, the board is important, and they are all bound by rules to make the game of chess work. However before chess board pieces were made, before the rules were made, the rules of chess did not apply. The rule that if you take the king = winning the game did not apply. Before the whole concept and all the pieces existed, there were no rules, no rule that if you take the opponents king piece that person "loses" all the rules are contained solely within the created concept of chess and the parts that make it work. Additionally all these rules only apply when the actual game of chess is being played and the players agree to the rules. They cease to apply after the game ends, just like they did not apply before the game began.

xenoview's picture
Peripatetic

Peripatetic
You state the universe is contingent. Did the universe happen by design or was it all chance?
You state that the contingent has a cause. What is the cause?
You state the universe has a cause. What is the cause?

Peripatetic's picture
do you accept what i have

do you accept what i have stated?

xenoview's picture
No I do not accept what you

No I do not accept what you state. You have not defined the cause.

Peripatetic's picture
i know i haven't, im asking

i know i haven't, im asking do you accept that the universe has a necessary cause?

xenoview's picture
How can I accept there is a

How can I accept there is a necessary cause if I don't know what the cause is. Can you tell me what the necessary cause is?

Peripatetic's picture
you can easily accept there

you can easily accept there is a necessary being that is knowing, wise, powerful created the world without knowing if he had sent prophets or not. Or if a certain prophet is indeed a Prophet or not.

MCDennis's picture
TLDNR.

TLDNR.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.