The Kalam Cosmological Argument

186 posts / 0 new
Last post
Josh's picture
@Xeno

@Xeno

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.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

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."

Cognostic's picture
@josh: "An infinite chain

@josh: "An infinite chain of dependent beings is logically absurd." This is the claim. Now prove it.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"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.

Sheldon's picture
Reedemption "The concept of

Reedemption "The concept of existence cannot be measured or analyzed through scientific means -- only through the study of metaphysics"

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.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Josh - ...this being is

Josh - ...this being is necessary to support the existence of dependent beings.

Another postulate? How soon should we expect you to finish listing them?

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

" 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.

Josh's picture
@ David Killens

@ 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?

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

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.

Josh's picture
This "word salad" of

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.

Cognostic's picture
@Josh: So you have admitted

@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.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"Argument of Dependency"?

I Googled that term and did not even get a hit. Now you are just making up presuppositionalist crap.

Cognostic's picture
@David Killens: MORE

@David Killens: MORE presuppositional crap!

David Killens's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

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.

Nyarlathotep's picture
"Argument of Dependency"?

David Killens -
"Argument of Dependency"?

I Googled that term and did not even get a hit. Now you are just making up presuppositionalist crap.

You like how he capitalized Dependency; presumably to make the phrase look like a proper noun? Very subtle, imo.

David Killens's picture
Typical theist trick, to

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".

Cognostic's picture
@Reedemption: And at no place

@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!

xenoview's picture
@Josh

@Josh
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.

Josh's picture
xenoview,

xenoview,

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.

xenoview's picture
@josh

@josh
Now you are playing words games about god. What objective evidence do you have for a pure actual being?

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"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.

CyberLN's picture
Josh, you wrote, “Another way

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.

Thanks

David Killens's picture
Should I take odds that this

Should I take odds that this line of questioning leads to a special pleading?

Josh's picture
For clarification, I am using

@ CyberLN

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.

Cognostic's picture
@xenoview: No one knows

@xenoview: No one knows whether or not the universe had a cause.

xenoview's picture
@cog

@cog
No one knows how the universe got here.

possibletarian's picture
@josh

@josh

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 ?

Cognostic's picture
@josh

@josh

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."

Grinseed's picture
Philosophical apologetics is

Philosophical apologetics is one of my pet hates. Its all circular gobbley-gook forcing tortured vaguely redefined secret-handshake meanings on to already established words.
You are theoretically trying to establish the existence of an actual pure being identical to existence itself that also actualises dependant potential beings entirely reliant on this actual pure being that in no way asserts itself to be "God" because you have an unsubstantiated view that there can be no infinite regress and that as far as you understand the universe had to have had a beginning therefore a cause all without the slightest bit of physical evidence or proof about any of this shit..

Interesting name Josh...like "I was only joshing"....I sense a naked foot somewhere....

And for what? You think you are going to convert this zoo full of ex-christian atheists with this load of presumptuous airy fairy linguistic quasi logic drivel?

We have all been here before, many times.
If you want to prove your god is real, stop fucking about with theoretical bullshit and go cure an entire cancer ward at your local hospital. Jesus said you could do it if only you believe, not if you could play at pseudo greek philosopher theology upsetting all the good atheists he created.
When you have done that come back and restore my hearing.
Thank you.

Sheldon's picture
So an endless list of

So an endless list of unevidenced assumptions, all addressed specifically to atheists in an atheist forum, and not in order to evidence a deity.

Is anyone else finding this latest grind though the inadequacies of the KCA as pointless as the others?

We don't know if the universe as we observe it had a cause, we think it had a point of origin (the big bang), and we don't know if that had or required a cause outside of the conditions that existed prior to it which we know little to nothing about. Citing the law of cause and effect in the physical temporal universe is obviously nonsensical if you immediately apply it to a condition here we have no way of knowing if it would have any validity. Strike two is immediately contradicting your argument by postulating a cause that breaks this rule you have cited in your first premise.

So the KCA is not very compelling, as it is obviously flawed. Making any assertions based on things we don't know seems like the very definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to me as well.

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.