The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@ David Killens
Who is their mother's existence dependent on? Who is her parent's existence dependent on? It's still the same problem.
We are dependent on are parents to get us here. We are dependent upon ourself to continue to exist.
Thats true. Even if we cease existing after we are born it still doesnt take away the fact that we were dependent for our existence.
I am not talking about another subject (which you are attempting to do by moving the goalposts) but rather your statement ...
"Dependent beings cannot be dependent on another thing for their existence and exist at the same time."
Substitute "dependent" for my 60 year old ex co-worker who still lives in his mother's basement, and his mother for "another thing", and the statement fails.
"My 60 year old ex co-worker who still lives in his mother's basement cannot be dependent on his mother for his existence and exist at the same time."
@josh: "An infinite chain of dependent beings is logically absurd." This is the claim. Now prove it.
"The concept of existence cannot be measured or analyzed through scientific means -- only through the study of metaphysics and logical reasoning."
What a load of bullshit!!!
Many great philosophers and scientists embraced Positivism, and here is a part of that definition. as (from Wiki)
"Positivism also holds that society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws. Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected, as are metaphysics and theology because metaphysical and theological claims cannot be verified by sense experience."
Einstein fully embraced Positivism, which was espoused by Comte, and many other great minds.
I don't like to appeal to authority or name drop, but holy fuck, you have to prove "Positivism" and they were wrong for me to believe you.
More unevidenced hubris. However this claim is demonstrably incorrect, science has and is studying existence. There is nothing in the natural universe science can't study, that is the very definition of what science does.
Metaphysics is hokum.
Another postulate? How soon should we expect you to finish listing them?
" a being that is identical to existence itself."
Thus "a being" = existence
Existence = the universe
"something MUST be eternal and uncreated"
a being = universe = eternal
Josh, you just argued an eternal universe.
@ David Killens
You are confusing the difference between independent and dependent existence. How can the universe be independent of itself if it is existence itself?
I just reduced your statement into a simple math equation.
But this word salad of dependent and independent was never part of the Kalam, this is something theists have tacked on in order to support their proposition. Once that is done, it negates the original argument.
Your argument is that the universe was created out of something form nothing, and that remains to be proven.
p.s. I find it both amusing and sad that theists have to resort to using word salad and convoluted argument in order to justify belief in their deity. For a god that (reportedly) interacted a lot with primitive tribes, it is amazing it is now playing hide and seek. And very well, at that.
This "word salad" of dependent and independent beings is a different, and much stronger argument than the scientific Cosmological argument. It is the Argument of Dependency. Think of it more vertically than horizontally. A chain of dependent links cannot sustain itself. There must be a link different than the rest that actualizes the existence of the chain of dependent links. My #28 post explains this more in depth.
@Josh: So you have admitted defeat with the stupidity of the cosmological argument and now you are moving forward with dependent and independent beings. Why not start a new thread and I suggest that you begin by identifying what in the hell you mean by an independent being.
Sorry for your loss but the cosmological argument has been failing since Plato (c. 427–347 BC) and Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC) who both proposed such silly arguments.
"Argument of Dependency"?
I Googled that term and did not even get a hit. Now you are just making up presuppositionalist crap.
@David Killens: MORE presuppositional crap!
Refute one wild proposition, they just make up new terms and frames of reference. As someone coming from the construction world where you must interact with reality every second, I just shake my head at their wild delusions and disconnect from reality.
The really ironic part is, that using the same "logic" and methodology they use to "prove" their god, that very same method can be used to argue any imaginary creature into existence.
You like how he capitalized Dependency; presumably to make the phrase look like a proper noun? Very subtle, imo.
Typical theist trick, to emphasize a word or join two words together to make them appear relevant or important. They sneak it in, and then later attempt to make it the focal point of their argument.
To steal and pervert a line from Darth Vader ... "The word salad is strong in this one".
@Reedemption: And at no place were you strawmanned. I asked a question.
RE: " I am making sure you understand that something MUST be eternal and uncreated if a being is dependent on something for its existence."
And you have said it 25 times now and it has been challenged every single time. Prove it! ALL YOU ARE DOING IS MAKING A GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUMENT. ONCE AGAIN. (THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT.) TAKE YOUR MEDS BEFORE POSTING AGAIN.
re: "there must be an independent being that exists and acted to bring the first dependent being into existence."
MORONIC CLAIM #26 Now take a cookie, put on your little red helmet, go to your room and bash your head on the wall for an hour. Mommy loves you!
Your argument has no creator god as the cause.
You haven't given any objective evidence for a creator god.
Lets be truthful, none of use know what cause the universe.
The purpose of the Argument from Dependency is not to prove the existence of God, it is to prove that their must be a pure actual being that actualizes the existence of potential beings. In no way does this argument assert that God is this pure actual being. This cause could take many forms but it must be identical to existence itself.
Now you are playing words games about god. What objective evidence do you have for a pure actual being?
"This cause could take many forms but it must be identical to existence itself."
But it isn't. Everything that exists can be observed (in one form or another) and tested via the scientific process. Your god does not fulfill that criteria.
Josh, you wrote, “Another way to explain this is the Argument from Dependency. Every being that begins to exist is called a "dependent being" because it is dependent upon a prior existing being.“
Really, a prior existing BEING? EVERY being? I have significant doubt that this is fact and would very much appreciate the data to back up this assertion of yours.
Should I take odds that this line of questioning leads to a special pleading?
For clarification, I am using the Classic Philosophical definition of "being" which is "something that exists." The word "being" can be confusing since it sounds like I'm saying God or something but it is just something that exists. And yes, every being that begins to exist is dependent on something prior to its existence. Hopefully this clears things up.
@xenoview: No one knows whether or not the universe had a cause.
No one knows how the universe got here.
With these two premises, the conclusion must be that the universe had a cause for its existence. Understand that I am not arguing that this cause is God but this cause must be uncaused, outside of, and independent of the universe. I am curious about your responses and open to discussion/ any questions you may have.
1) By cause do you mean an event which proceed the big bang ? if not, why not ?
2) Why must the events that proceeded the big bang be uncaused ?
READ THE FRIGGING RESPONSES:
PREMISE ONE - REJECTED FALLACIOUS
PREMISE TWO - REJECTED FALLACIOUS
PREMISE THREE - REJECTED AND FALLACIOUS AS WELL
YOU CAN NOT KNOW "EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS HAS A CAUSE."
YOU CAN NOT KNOW "THE UNIVERSE CAME INTO BEING."
YOU CAN NOT KNOW "THE UNIVERSE HAD A CAUSE."