The Kalam Cosmological Argument

186 posts / 0 new
Last post
Randomhero1982's picture
Oh jeez, this again....

Oh jeez, this again....

Ok so given the following...

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

... and the usual William Lane Craig arguements, I.e. there must be a prime mover and this being is a god...

1 - What was the first action?

You state all causes have effects, what was the first effect? And the mechanisms allowing it?

2 - Why is this first cause a God?

Why not a pan dimensional unicorn called Brian?
Why must it be the specific god you believe in?

3 - This theorem relies on a finite universe to which hasn't been proven, there are plenty of good external models, such as the Aguirre-Gratton model of eternal inflation.

Do you not see how incredibly weak the arguement is?

This is without even going over as others have that religion and theism offer bugger all empirical or objective evidence to support their horse-shit.

Josh's picture
@ Randomhero1982

@ Randomhero1982

1. The first effect of the uncaused first cause was to actualize the existence of the first dependent being.

2. If you go through each one of my responses, never once have I stated that this pure actual being is my specific God. As I have said multiple times, this cause can possibly take the form of a pan dimensional unicorn called Brian, or any other being.

3. You should read my #28 post. It is explaining the dependency of existence which is actually a stronger argument than the big bang argument of causality. I will certainly research the Aguirre-Gratton model more thanks for the suggestion.

xenoview's picture
@josh

@josh
What is an uncaused cause?

What objective evidence do you have for a pure actual being?

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"If you go through each one of my responses, never once have I stated that this pure actual being is my specific God."

Granted, true. But you are a theist who comes into an atheist forum and submits the KCA, which is a tiresome argument used by apologists to support their beliefs?

If you have sincerely intended for the KCA to be discussed devoid of a god, you would have taken the KCA to a physics forum.

Your intent is patently obvious. You hoped to win the KCA, then proclaim, "there, a valid argument for a god!"

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
RE:

RE:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
____________________

1) It is unsound - exist in relation to what? It begs the reference problem (to follow).
2) This is an assumption - unsound.
**breaksdown

Definition needed for 'universe'.

The term 'universe' changes as science learns about the structure of it (ie. is it geometrically flat? open? closed?) and can not possibly be said to be "known" to any degree that merits the assumption of 2)

'THAT' REFERENCE PROBLEM

*thought experiment*
Two entities only:
'I am' and 'that I am'
wherein 'I am' is any being
and 'that I am' is all else.

If 'I am' is unknown,
'that I am' can not be known
because nothing can be known
in relation to (as) an unknown.

However if 'I am' is known
'that I am' can be inferred
and thus known
as it exists
if it exists.

That is why anyone:
theist or atheist alike,
can not even approach the problem of god
without knowing themselves first. Else: belief.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause <-*must apply to 'I am'.

Each being must query whether or not they 'know' if they themselves had a cause and/or ever "began" to exist. This problem gets into metaphysics; it relates to the cycles and how each being is effectively going around in circles (as above, so below is a universal axiom and property of fractal mathematics). Essentially there are multiverse tiers a being "emerges" into each solar year based on their own 'I am' in relation to... well, now you know the reason for 'that' reference problem.

The 'I am' is intended each to their own.
If 'I am' is known, all else on the other/out side can be inferred and known.
Else: 'I am' is "believed" to be something (it is not).
Knowing (what not to "believe") is gnosis; knowing.

The "believers" who are bound to "believe" things that are untrue in an ongoing state tend towards suffering and death, therefor their circles are smaller and move faster/more rapidly. The ones like atheists here are likewise bound, but not quite as much. They too "believe" something they do not know thus invite limitations in their conscience that would not otherwise be there if they didn't "believe".

Kataclismic's picture
First you need evidence that

First you need evidence that the universe began, I postulate it has always existed in some form or other and therefore needs no cause.

Cognostic's picture
RE: THE UNIVERSE. I

RE: THE UNIVERSE. I POSTULATE anyone that can prove a cause or an eternal universe, either way, is going to win a Nobel Prize.

David Killens's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

"I POSTULATE anyone that can prove a cause or an eternal universe, either way, is going to win a Nobel Prize."

Guaranteed, it would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries of all time, standing alongside Newton's, and Einstein's work.

Josh's picture
https://www.youtube.com/watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK--101vj-w

Above is a video that I think hits a lot of the points you all have been pointing out throughout this debate. It is William Lane Craig speaking (and yes I understand you all hate him) but I want you to give it a chance just as I have given your links and videos a chance. I am still working through them just because there have been so many responses but I would appreciate if you watch and tell me what you think. Thank you!

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Randomhero1982's picture
I would strongly suggest that

I would strongly suggest that you watch his debate with Shaun Carroll, an actually physicist, who completely dismantled his arguements.

https://youtu.be/GKDCZHimElQ

Actually, I would suggest everyone watches it, Carroll is brilliant.

Also note that most major religious platform on youtube that has this video has disabled comments...

Not to mention, WLC always tried to build his hypothesis on science he doesn't truly understand.

The most embarrassing of which being his constant reference to the Borde, Guth & Vilenkin theorem.
In which he demonstrates he doesn't understand the theorem, different acceptable models and advances in physics.

Guth himself, declared publically via Carroll in this debate that the universe may well indeed be infinite.

Either way, you are still stuck with the fact that no one can determine what could cause the universe to come into existence.

It is simply a dog shit attempt at subtly playing a god of the gaps fallacy.

It's sad that the very best that theism can present is the Kalam cosmological arguement... my main issues with it are...

1 - It is not a deductive logical argument, and none have ever been and likely never will be made.

2 - It tries to use physics that it clearly doesn't understand.

3 - There are perfectly valid models of infinite universes, some using a reversal of the arrow of time etc...

4 - It cannot answer what the first action was, so that we can objectively and empirically determine if its true or accurate.

5 - Will postulate an entity that contradicts and requires the suspension of the laws of nature and physics.

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Josh

@Josh
I watched it (well I listened to it). Seems like the same d̶u̶b̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ controversial postulates.

Sheldon's picture
@Josh

@Josh

So your argument is the universe had a cause. We know this already it's the big bang. Are you claiming that had a cause?

If so please tell us accurately what this cause was, and demonstrate objective evidence for it?

Simply making endless unevidenced assertion about the nature of the cause is pointless if you can neither define the cause nor evidence it....

Josh's picture
@Cognostic and everyone else

@Cognostic and everyone else

Ok. So you an everyone else keep telling me that I need to prove "nothing" exists and that infinite regress is impossible, correct? How can I possibly give empirical evidence for something that does not exist? You are making a category mistake by asking for evidence ON nothing and evidence FOR the impossibility of an infinite regress. There is no substantial evidence for something that is impossible to exist. You said "Prove nothing/non-being is real." This is the category mistake. It's a contradiction to tell me to prove something that does not exist. Theres no evidence that can be given FOR a contradiction. Its like asking me to prove the existence of a square triangle. You can't. It's a contradiction. It cannot exist as a thing. Contradictions cannot be true because they violate one of the canons of logic.

Once again, you and I are dependent beings by nature. Our existence was actualized by our parents. Our parents existence was actualized by their parents, and so on.... If ALL beings were dependent than no beings could exist. It's impossible for all beings to be dependent and yet still exist -- its a contradiction. So, my evidence that an infinite regress is impossible is that there is NONE because its a contradiction. You are proving my point when you say my claim is "unevidenced." Contradictions cannot exist!

Nyarlathotep's picture
...my evidence that an

Josh - ...my evidence that an infinite regress is impossible is that there is NONE because its a contradiction.

Why should we accept your statement that an infinite regress is a contradiction?

And I'm curious, what exactly does it form a contradiction with?

Cognostic's picture
@Nyarlathotep: "what

@Nyarlathotep: "what exactly does it form a contradiction with?"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...... What a great question!!!

Josh's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

Like I said to Cognostic, an infinite chain of dependent beings cannot exist if they are dependent for their existence. They can't both exist and be dependent at the same time. This is the contradiction. It's in contradiction with itself. I obviously cannot force you to believe this since there is no "evidence" for it, but thats entirely the point.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Josh - ...an infinite chain

Josh - ...an infinite chain of dependent beings cannot exist if they are dependent for their existence. They can't both exist and be dependent at the same time.

That does not seem to be a logical conclusion from the postulates you've posted, so I must assume this is just another postulate.

We see this kind of thing all the time here at AR. Lists of suspicious postulates in an argument about religion, that when questioned are defended with more suspicious postulates. That is not how convincing arguments are constructed. To construct an convincing argument, you need to use uncontroversial postulates. Anyone can make an argument for anything with controversial postulates.

Sheldon's picture
@Josh

@Josh

You seem to have missed my question?

So your argument is the universe had a cause. We know this already it's the big bang. Are you claiming that had a cause?

If so please tell us accurately what this cause was, and demonstrate objective evidence for it?

Simply making endless unevidenced assertion about the nature of the cause is pointless if you can neither define the cause nor evidence it....

You have made the unevidenced assertion that dependant and independent beings exist, you categorise beings that have an obvious cause as dependant, but how do you know the big bang had or even required a cause? You are simply making an assumption that leads you to your favoured a priori belief in a deity as a prime mover or first cause.

xenoview's picture
@josh

@josh
We are all dependent upon our parents to get here. We are dependent upon other people to survive.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"It's a contradiction to tell me to prove something that does not exist."

No, I am (I cannot speak for others) pointing out the absurdity of your claim by using word salad, in this case, "nothing". This "nothing" has never been observed, can not be tested, and even the definition is difficult. So how come you just casually throw this "nothing" word around?

How about a reset: please provide your definition of "nothing".

Josh's picture
@ David

@ David

Nothing : "something that does not exist"

Category mistake: asking me to try to prove, through empirical evidence, that "nothing" exists. "Nothing" has never been observed and can not be tested because it does not exist. Its like asking me to prove 3 - 4 = -1.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

Nothing : "something that does not exist"

Do not define what it is not, please define what it is.

If you asked me to define what an elephant is, my stating "it does not have gills", still leaves everything incredibly vague and incomplete. I could not have offered a valid definition on what an elephant is by stating something it was not.

Josh's picture
@ David

@ David

Ok I'll re-define nothing:

"Nothing IS something that does not exist"

While I say that jokingly, its the only possible way to describe something that does not exist. You can't describe something that does not exist by its characteristics, only by what it lacks. What does it lack? Existence.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"Nothing IS something that does not exist"

So "Nothing" is now a "something"? If nothing becomes something then it is no longer nothing.

Josh, I am dragging you down this prickly rabbit-hole to illustrate that your casual definition on "Nothing" is something you must take seriously, and that just throwing shit against a wall and hoping something sticks doesn't work in here. We can go at this all day because you CAN NOT, NOR WILL YOU EVER BE ABLE TO DEFINE "NOTHING".

Yet you throw this word around casually believing we will willingly accept your bullshit.

Josh's picture
@ David

@ David

So I guess we will have to disagree about the definition of nothing sense you dont agree with either of my definitions. I cannot force you to agree with me but it is irrational to attempt to define the characteristics of something that does not exist. You can't. You can only describe it by something it does not have -- existence. It's a category mistake. Youre asking me to provide a definition of something we cannot observe. I will keep saying the same thing again and again.

Cognostic's picture
@Josh: Can't you hear the

@Josh: Can't you hear the bullshit you are writing?
definition of nothing
something that does not exist.
describe it by something it does not have
You;re asking me to provide a definition of something we cannot observe,

HELLLLLLOOOOO ! if you can not observe it.... how in the fuck are you describing it? Not only can you not observe it but there is no form of logical inquiry that is going to get you to know it is there. YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE DOROTHY.

Josh's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

You proved my point. If I cannot observe it I can only "describe" it by saying its "something that does not exist." Its impossible to describe any characteristics it has because it doesn't exist. It's lacking existence.

"no form of logical inquiry that is going to get you to know it is there"

It isn't "there." It isnt anywhere. It does not exist. You can't detect something that is "there" if it is not.

Cognostic's picture
@Josh: "If I cannot

@Josh: "If I cannot observe it I can only "describe" it by saying its "something that does not exist."

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO - YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS TWO PRONGS OF AN ARGUMENT AT THE SAME TIME.

If I can not describe it (IF I CAN NOT SAY IT EXISTS) I can only describe it by saying it is something that does not exist. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO......

The only thing you can say is "I HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR ITS EXISTENCE." YOU CAN NOT MAKE THE ASSERTION, "IT DOES NOT EXIST" WITHOUT EVIDENCE. YOU ARE LEFT WITH THE POSITION "I DON'T KNOW." SO STOP PRETENDING YOU DO KNOW.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

No
David Killens's picture
Josh,I have no problem

Josh,I have no problem agreeeing on any definition of any word. But that word must be relevant, and not just-made-up and casually used without a full understanding on what it is..

The problem with the Kalam is that it is a physics question debated by non-physicists. That is why I gave you a hard time on the definition of "nothing", to prove you did not have the chops to seriously debate this physics issue. And over in the land of physics, it is not even an issue because was proven irrelevant and a distraction by the scientific community.

The premise that the universe began to exist is very difficult to achieve. In fact, if anyone could prove what the conditions were before the big bang began it's expansion, a Nobel is guaranteed.

The well trained rational mind easily discards the Kalam as an irrelevant distraction.

Cognostic's picture
#27 - How frigging dense are

#27 - How frigging dense are you?

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.