The Kalam Cosmological Argument

186 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
@Josh: here cannot be an

@Josh: here cannot be an endless chain of dependent beings, something must ground their existence (by being I mean something that exists).

You keep making this assertion and have not offered any evidence at all to support your position. How do you know this?? You have already been given examples debunking your claim. Why continue making the same ignorant claim over and over?

Josh's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

I am certainly confused about how this logical reasoning does not qualify as evidence to support my claim. Does it not make sense? An infinite chain of dependent beings is logically absurd. The concept of existence cannot be measured or analyzed through scientific means -- only through the study of metaphysics and logical reasoning. The question of why there is existence rather than nothing is a question that science will never explain. The only way to answer this question is through philosophy and logic. Are you telling me logic is not a basis for truth?

Sheldon's picture
Josh "The question of why

Josh "The question of why there is existence rather than nothing is a question that science will never explain."

I see you're still reeling off unevidenced claims,

Jo " Are you telling me logic is not a basis for truth?"

You're not using logic, you're doing what all theists and religious apologists do on here, and making endless and tedious unevidenced assertions, you're bias in favour of your a priori beliefs are manifest. As the dishonesty of pretending this woeful argument is not about your belief in your favoured deity, else why bring it to an atheist forum, and offer it specifically to atheists.

Cognostic's picture
RE: I am certainly confused

RE: I am certainly confused about how this logical reasoning does not qualify as evidence to support my claim.

Every atheist on the site has clearly stated the logical objections and pointed out the fallacies/.

RE: An infinite chain of dependent beings is logically absurd. (What evidence do you have for the claim?) You keep making the same inane assertions. YOUR PROBLEM IS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF INFINITY. IT IS NOT A NUMBER. An infinite series of tasks cannot be finished. (If the series is finished, it’s finite) If the universe is infinite it, by definition, can not have a beginning. Asserting a beginning is a complete non-sequitur. The real question becomes, how is it infinite.

RE: The concept of existence cannot be measured or analyzed through scientific means.

A is A, A is not non A, A is either or not A. Existence is Existence. Existence is not non-existence. Existence is either Existence or Non-existence and there is no middle ground. Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality. It is certainly defined. If you are not talking about this, we are not talking about the same thing. So what is it you are talking about when you use the word "Existence." Using any other definition would lead to an equivocation fallacy.

RE: The question of why there is existence rather than nothing is a question that science will never explain.

WOW! What rock have you been hiding under.

WHY THERE IS SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5A2OVYJkFk

Cognostic's picture
RE: I am certainly confused

RE: I am certainly confused about how this logical reasoning does not qualify as evidence to support my claim.

Every atheist on the site has clearly stated the logical objections and pointed out the fallacies/.

RE: An infinite chain of dependent beings is logically absurd. (What evidence do you have for the claim?) You keep making the same inane assertions. YOUR PROBLEM IS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF INFINITY. IT IS NOT A NUMBER. An infinite series of tasks cannot be finished. (If the series is finished, it’s finite) If the universe is infinite it, by definition, can not have a beginning. Asserting a beginning is a complete non-sequitur. The real question becomes, how is it infinite.

RE: The concept of existence cannot be measured or analyzed through scientific means.

A is A, A is not non A, A is either or not A. Existence is Existence. Existence is not non-existence. Existence is either Existence or Non-existence and there is no middle ground. Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality. It is certainly defined. If you are not talking about this, we are not talking about the same thing. So what is it you are talking about when you use the word "Existence." Using any other definition would lead to an equivocation fallacy.

RE: The question of why there is existence rather than nothing is a question that science will never explain.

WOW! What rock have you been hiding under.

WHY THERE IS SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5A2OVYJkFk

Cognostic's picture
EVIDENCE: What evidence?

EVIDENCE: What evidence? Please demonstrate the universe had a cause. Please demonstrate the absurdity of an infinite chain of causes.

RE: "existence cannot be measured or analyzed through scientific means" Existence: "the fact or state of living or having objective reality." Sounds pretty scientific to me. The universe has objective reality.

RE: "Metaphysics" Do you understand what "metaphysics" is? "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including ABSTRACT concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. abstract theory WITH NO BASIS IN REALITY." You are logically reasoning about things that are not real. You are wasting your time and ours.

https://www.google.com/search?q=existence&oq=Existence&aqs=chrome.0.0l5j...

RE: "The question of why there is existence rather than nothing " Asked and answered. I already gave you the links. Go argue with a physicist. I am sure Niel DeGrass Tyson would love to hear from you. You would have Laurence Krauss hanging on every word as you explained your theory of the universe to him. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS OPEN YOUR EYES.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ascn8kUXO1c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kGBjaWK2Ew

Josh's picture
You are still committing a

You are still committing a category mistake by saying "Please demonstrate the absurdity of an infinite chain of causes." I cannot demonstrate it because it is a contradiction. Contradictions cannot exist. I will keep making the same argument that all beings cannot be dependent in an infinite chain because they would not exist. Dependent beings cannot be dependent on another thing for their existence and exist at the same time. Until you refute this, I don't know what else to say.

Metaphysics has no basis in reality? It is literally studying the fundamental nature of reality. It is the study of "being" and "existence" itself. I understand when you say existence is "the fact or state of living or having objective reality" but when I said that I am pointing out that HOW we got our existence cannot be analyzed through scientific means.

Cognostic's picture
@I cannot demonstrate it

@I cannot demonstrate it because it is a contradiction.
Contradiction with what?

@Metaphysics has no basis in reality? You are confusing it with quantum physics. I gave you the exact definition.

Josh's picture
An infinite regress is in

An infinite regress is in contradiction with itself. There cannot be an infinite chain of dependent beings that exists. That in itself is the contradiction. They, by definition, are dependent on something independent for their existence, not other dependent beings. If you agree that a contradiction cannot be proven because it cannot exist, then I cannot "prove" that an infinite regress is impossible.

Cognostic's picture
re: An infinite regress is

re: An infinite regress is in contradiction with itself. A moronic statement. A dog is a contradiction of itself. A number is a contradiction of itself. The idea of god is a contradiction of itself? What the fuck are you talking about?

First law of logic. A is A.
Second law A is not B
Third law \ There is no middle ground.

Infinite regress is infinite regress.
Infinite regress is not anything else.
There is no middle ground.

Where is this contradiction you speak of> Just because you assert it does not make it so.

RE: There cannot be an infinite chain of dependent beings that exists. {Prove it.)

RE: If you agree that a contradiction cannot be proven because it cannot exist, then I cannot "prove" that an infinite regress is impossible.

Of course contradictions can be proved. Demonstrate the contradiction you are speaking of. Waiting........

Josh's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

Still making the same category mistake. "Of course contradictions can be proved" If contradictions can be proved, prove to me that a square triangle exists.

How is a dog a contradiction with itself? Its a dependent being.

xenoview's picture
@josh

@josh
Is your god a dependent being?

Cognostic's picture
@ Josh: RE: If you agree

@ Josh: RE: If you agree that a contradiction cannot be proven because it cannot exist,

This is a completely ignorant statement. If you agree that a god can not be proved to exist then it must not exist. NO!

You are making two assertions at the same time.
I. A contradiction can not be proved. Obviously it can
2. A contradiction can not exist/ (This requires a burden of proof.)

Josh's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

A contradiction cannot be proved BECAUSE it cannot exist. You keep telling me that a contradiction can be proved. Do you have any evidence this is true? Please prove to me that a square triangle exists!

Cognostic's picture
contradiction:

contradiction:
A contradiction is a situation or ideas in opposition to one another. Declaring publicly that you are an environmentalist but never remembering to take out the recycling is an example of a contradiction.

No explain how infinite regression is a contradiction. Contradiction to what?

Josh's picture
I already explained this. If

I already explained this. If all beings are dependent for their existence and yet still exist, this is a "situation or idea in opposition to one another." Its a contradiction in itself. A square triangle is a "situation or idea in opposition to one another." You keep dancing around the question because you cannot possibly prove the existence of a contradiction. Are you saying a square triangle is not a contradiction?

Cognostic's picture
@Josh: More idiotic

@Josh: More idiotic assertions. GIVE AN EXAMPLE GIVE IT UP.

Josh's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

Which of my assertions are idiotic? My #50 post explains the example.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"Are you saying a square triangle is not a contradiction?"

Most definitely.

"Square" is the assigned definition of a two dimensional object with four sides. "Triangle" is the assigned definition of a two dimensional object with three sides. There is no contradiction, just an attempt to cram two separate and distinct nouns into one noun.

Josh, you really need to work on your logic. Your statement falls flat because of one changes a few words, the sentence fails.

"Are you saying an elephant baboon is not a contradiction?"

Josh's picture
@ David

@ David

You are not understanding what I am saying. Obviously a square and a triangle are two distinct objects but there will never be a singular square-triangle existing at the same time, in the same sense, and in the same form. Its a contradiction because we know the nature of those two things and know they cannot exist together.

The same goes for the elephant baboon.

David Killens's picture
So why are you attempting to

So why are you attempting to force two distinct objects into one contradiction? Anyone can play this stupid word game by selecting any two nouns, attempt to join them together and proclaim "look, a contradiction!"

An example of a contradiction is when a devout christian states that god opposes slavery, when it is patently obvious from many passages from the bible that that their god endorsed such a foul practice.

p.s. What is a pyramid? Is it not a square and a triangle all in one? Observe it from overhead and it is a square. Observe it from ground level and it is a triangle. I can play stupid word games too, and they have zero impact on a healthy debate.

Josh's picture
@ David

@ David

My whole point by proving that contradictions cannot exist is because an infinite regress is, by nature, a contradiction. I'm not just trying to confuse you by all these shapes and stuff but to relate it back to infinite regress.

A pyramid is its own entity. It is neither a square or a triangle, its a pyramid. A square and a triangle are two dimensional - a pyramid is three dimensional. While a square and four triangles make up sections of the pyramid, they are not of the same essence.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"A pyramid is its own entity. It is neither a square or a triangle, its a pyramid. A square and a triangle are two dimensional - a pyramid is three dimensional. While a square and four triangles make up sections of the pyramid, they are not of the same essence."

When you observe a pyramid from the side, you see a triangle. When you observe a pyramid from above, you see a square. It's all relative.

For it's application in this discussion, please define "essence". Is that the essence of General Ripper? POE. Or was that OPE?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV4Y_ensniY

Josh's picture
@ David

@ David

Essence: "is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity and without which loses its identity"

So, what I was saying was that a pyramid is fundamentally its own entity. A square and a triangle may make up sections of the pyramid, but they are not fundamentally of the same essence. The essence of a square and triangle are different than a pyramid, so they cannot exist together in the same form. The whole point is that it would be a contradiction to have a square-triangle because they have difference essences. Follow?

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

Viewed from the ground, a pyramid presents a triangular appearance. Viewed from above, a pyramid presents a square appearance.

I argue that an object's appearance is part of it's "essence". It establishes an object's identity. Physical appearance is a property.

Cognostic's picture
Josh: My mouse pad is a

Josh: My mouse pad is a square and my mouse a triangle. They have existed together for about 8 years now. What are you talking about? What in the hell do you have against elephant baboons. You just come on this site and start offending everyone. What an ass. Quit being a bigot! I have enclosed the last known picture of Todd before he went all non-corporal on us. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Josh's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

Ok none of that had anything to do with my argument - ad hominem. A mouse pad and a mouse are two different things - they don't exist together in the same essence.

I appreciate these debates. My intention has never been to offend anyone in case it seems that way.

Cognostic's picture
@Josh: You are not debating.

@Josh: You are not debating. You are just making one inane, unsubstantiated assertion after another.

Cognostic's picture
@Josh: RE: " A mouse pad and

@Josh: RE: " A mouse pad and a mouse are two different things - they don't exist together in the same essence."
They do when I am high on crack.

You also do not know how to listen to others or do the research. You are stuck in a rut and unwilling or unable to budge. YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE. NOT WITHOUT A NOBEL PRIZE. THIS IS AN ATHEIST FORUM. GO SPREAD YOUR HALLUCINATIONS ON A PHYSICS FORUM. PERHAPS THEY WILL BE IMPRESSED WITH YOUR OBTUSE REASONING.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"they don't exist together in the same essence."

There we are again, essence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV4Y_ensniY

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.