News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Started by Teaspoon Shallow, March 01, 2013, 05:32:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Davka

The entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Craig assumes that the Big Bang is an event which can be described as "the Universe coming into existence from nothing." But that's just wrong. The BB is the Universe transitioning from a state which cannot be examined, commonly referred to as "the singularity," into a state which is characterized by the space-time continuum, and which can be examined.

It's a convenient gap to try to stuff god into, because it is not only unknown, but quite possibly unknowable. But what it certainly is not is an effect without a cause. Without space-time, "cause and effect" is a meaningless concept. WLC seems to like the KCA primarily because the huge question mark which is metaphorically floating over the Big Bang is so much fun to point at and holler "see!!? Scientists don't know everything! Therefore God!"

It's a juvenile argument dressed up in a lab coat.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Davka"The entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Craig assumes that the Big Bang is an event which can be described as "the Universe coming into existence from nothing." But that's just wrong. The BB is the Universe transitioning from a state which cannot be examined, commonly referred to as "the singularity," into a state which is characterized by the space-time continuum, and which can be examined.

It's a convenient gap to try to stuff god into, because it is not only unknown, but quite possibly unknowable. But what it certainly is not is an effect without a cause. Without space-time, "cause and effect" is a meaningless concept. WLC seems to like the KCA primarily because the huge question mark which is metaphorically floating over the Big Bang is so much fun to point at and holler "see!!? Scientists don't know everything! Therefore God!"

It's a juvenile argument dressed up in a lab coat.

A great point.  The laws of physics break down inside a singularity, it seems.  Those same laws are what provide analytical and predictive power  to our investigations.  With that being the case, it seems pretty arrogant for WLC to assert that this or that can or can't have happened.
<insert witty aphorism here>

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: "Davka"The entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Craig assumes that the Big Bang is an event which can be described as "the Universe coming into existence from nothing." But that's just wrong. The BB is the Universe transitioning from a state which cannot be examined, commonly referred to as "the singularity," into a state which is characterized by the space-time continuum, and which can be examined.

It's a convenient gap to try to stuff god into, because it is not only unknown, but quite possibly unknowable. But what it certainly is not is an effect without a cause. Without space-time, "cause and effect" is a meaningless concept. WLC seems to like the KCA primarily because the huge question mark which is metaphorically floating over the Big Bang is so much fun to point at and holler "see!!? Scientists don't know everything! Therefore God!"

It's a juvenile argument dressed up in a lab coat.

Another great post!

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: "evolution dismantled"So here we have a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, changeless, uncaused, unimaginably powerful, and personal being that caused the universe. This beautifully fits the traditional definition of God.

http://evolutiondismantled.com/kalam

(Please see down the bottom of the page for answers to objections).

Now were take a huge leap to the next stage, injecting their god into the argument.

Argument goes, he is outside time and space because he created it so he is not bound by his creation.

I agree he is spaceless.  Human conjecture occupies not space that I am aware of.

But timeless.  Really?  Any motion or action would be bound by time.  This concept that god was essentially nothing and then created space and time is bit of a mind bender.  He (how is he a he if he is immaterial?) is non-existent and then just acts into bringing things into being.  If he is an "out of body mind", wouldn't the thought process be an action?  Would an action of thinking not be subject to time? (A laps between one thought and another?)

This massive leap is difficult for me to comprehend.

Thanks for the quality posts guys and girls. (after reading Youtube quotes my brain hurts)

Teaspoon Shallow

Possible Responses http://evolutiondismantled.com/kalam

1."Premise 1 of the kalam cosmological argument is flawed because particles have been observed, in quantum physics, to pop into existence from nothing."
When quantum physicists perform experiments, they use a vacuum – which is not absolutely nothing. Vacuums are not actually empty, for they contain a sea of energy such as zero-point energy. The main point to take home here is this: experiments that supposedly prove particles coming from nothing actually show particles coming from something.

Always be sceptical of scientists claiming that something can come from nothing. The word 'nothing' almost always means a state with 'a sea of energy'. And that's not nothing.

5. "Both premises of the kalam are true, or most probably true. But the cause wasn't God – the universe caused itself (this was Daniel Dennett's response, until William Lane Craig corrected him)."
This explains precisely nothing because the universe would have to already exist in order to create itself.

8. "Don't just say God did it – one day we might find a naturalistic explanation for the cause of the universe."
The universe is defined as the totality of all space, matter, time, and energy. Thus, the only possible entity that can cause all of this must be non-spatial, immaterial, timeless, and not bound by energy. So the cause must be supernatural and cannot be natural. If something natural caused the universe, then the universe would have had to already exist in order for the natural cause to exist!

I find it oddly amusing that they are so close to the answer yet are blind to it. (IMO)

Rebuttal of response 1. says that in a sea of energy, a vacuum is not nothing.
Rebuttal of 5 and 8 admit that the naturalist answer is energy was pre-existing.

Am I missing something here?  Have they not nullified their own rebuttal?  If virtual particles can come into existence in a sea of fluctuating energy could a naturalist explanation for the change of state to pre-existing energy / material be conceivable?

Davka

Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"But timeless.  Really?  Any motion or action would be bound by time.  This concept that god was essentially nothing and then created space and time is bit of a mind bender.  He (how is he a he if he is immaterial?) is non-existent and then just acts into bringing things into being.  If he is an "out of body mind", wouldn't the thought process be an action?  Would an action of thinking not be subject to time? (A laps between one thought and another?)
The answers I heard to these objections when I was a Christian are as follows:

- God is both inside time and timeless. God is not bound by time, but can act within it if he so chooses. And your tiny mind is too small to comprehend this, so stop trying.

- God is a "he" in the sense of being masculine, not male. God is the active principle, the Yang to the Universe's Yin.

What's interesting to me is that the Bible says no such thing. All this "timeless god" stuff is relatively recent. YHWH was just as much a part of time as any of the other ancient gods back in the OT. The intersection of Greek philosophy and Judaism is the root of the Trinity, Tri-Omni God, and both early Christian writings and Rabbinic Jewish writings.

GurrenLagann

#36
The Kalam? Hahahaha! Oh Craig, you just had to resurrect an old Muslim argument, which is just further evidence (as if we needed any) that Theologians cannot actually come up for valid and sound arguments supporting the existence of their religion's god-concept.


Also, the premises of the Kalam have always baffled me in syllogisms:

1) That which begins to exist has a cause.

-"Began to exist"? What? When has something ever began its existence? By which I mean, everything that does exist has always existed in some prior state, so it's existence has never been known to have "begun" in any brute, initial sense.


2) The Universe began to exist.

-See 1) for my confusion. And it makes an assertion it cannot hold. The Big Bang theory doesn't really detail the universe's origins, because it theorizes the existence of some prior, potentially unknowable.... thing that expanded. Premise 2) = total shit.


3) Therefore the Univeese has a cause.... which is axiomatically a Spaceless, Timeless, Changeless (because Timeless), Maximally Powerful, Maximally Knowledgeable, Maximally Benevolent, Man-thing (misogynistic much?)... [insert more vacuous terms]


-Even if this argument were coherent, valid AND sound (none of the above), that conclusion (minus the Theologian, obscurantist bullshit at the end), "The Universe has a cause", is as far as the syllogism goes. It wouldn't necessitate that the cause is a "being". It wouldn't tell you anything about it. And that absurd extra-Spatio-Temporal nonsense can be Reductio'ed:

If something is Spaceless, it by definition takes up no space, which is non-existence. Yahweh (in the Bible) has actually appeared and taken up residency in places (Heaven, Garden of Eden, Ark of the Covenant, the Holy of Holies, Jesus (lol)), therefore cannot be "spaceless" given Biblical texts.

Something that is Changeless (because Timeless) could NEVER do anything, because 'doing' necessitates at least 3 stages of distinction, not doing, doing, then not doing again. Biblical/Qur'anical God has done actions (in the text anyway), therefore is not Timeless.


In other words, William Lane Craig is a Gish-Galloping, obscurantist fraud who I am pleased to find fails to impress some Christians with his sleazy debate tactics and arguments. At least Pastor Douglas Wilson doesn't spew that kind of bullshit...
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

Zatoichi

^^^
GurrenLagann Nailed it.

No more need be said on the issue.
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it." ~Skippy's List

BarkAtTheMoon

Quote from: "Davka"
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"But timeless.  Really?  Any motion or action would be bound by time.  This concept that god was essentially nothing and then created space and time is bit of a mind bender.  He (how is he a he if he is immaterial?) is non-existent and then just acts into bringing things into being.  If he is an "out of body mind", wouldn't the thought process be an action?  Would an action of thinking not be subject to time? (A laps between one thought and another?)
The answers I heard to these objections when I was a Christian are as follows:

- God is both inside time and timeless. God is not bound by time, but can act within it if he so chooses. And your tiny mind is too small to comprehend this, so stop trying.

- God is a "he" in the sense of being masculine, not male. God is the active principle, the Yang to the Universe's Yin.

What's interesting to me is that the Bible says no such thing. All this "timeless god" stuff is relatively recent. YHWH was just as much a part of time as any of the other ancient gods back in the OT. The intersection of Greek philosophy and Judaism is the root of the Trinity, Tri-Omni God, and both early Christian writings and Rabbinic Jewish writings.

IOW, the definition of God is so nonsensical and general that he can be used as a placeholder to answer any question we want.
"When you landed on the moon, that was the point when God should have come up and said hello. Because if you invent some creatures and you put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, then you fucking turn up and say, 'Well done.' It's just a polite thing to do." - Eddie Izzard

Davka

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"
Quote from: "Davka"
Quote from: "Teaspoon Shallow"But timeless.  Really?  Any motion or action would be bound by time.  This concept that god was essentially nothing and then created space and time is bit of a mind bender.  He (how is he a he if he is immaterial?) is non-existent and then just acts into bringing things into being.  If he is an "out of body mind", wouldn't the thought process be an action?  Would an action of thinking not be subject to time? (A laps between one thought and another?)
The answers I heard to these objections when I was a Christian are as follows:

- God is both inside time and timeless. God is not bound by time, but can act within it if he so chooses. And your tiny mind is too small to comprehend this, so stop trying.

- God is a "he" in the sense of being masculine, not male. God is the active principle, the Yang to the Universe's Yin.

What's interesting to me is that the Bible says no such thing. All this "timeless god" stuff is relatively recent. YHWH was just as much a part of time as any of the other ancient gods back in the OT. The intersection of Greek philosophy and Judaism is the root of the Trinity, Tri-Omni God, and both early Christian writings and Rabbinic Jewish writings.

IOW, the definition of God is so nonsensical and general that he can be used as a placeholder to answer any question we want.
Well, yes, but that's only because God. Therefore God. And besides, quit trying to understand God. Who do you think you are? God?

. . . and so on.

The Non Prophet

Kalam was originally debunked hundreds of years ago and this windbag Craig tries to resurrect a dead argument for his fairy tale and has people calling him the best Christian defender today. Maybe if you've never considered these big philosophical issues he may sound deep but it's not, it's shallow and falls apart at every premise. Craig is full of logical fallacies and a healthy dose of assumptions about the universe without actually studying cosmology, especially his knowledge.. (ugh) about "nothing" which doesn't even exist.

Fidel_Castronaut

Somewhat off topic but the fact that Kalam is an argument and not evidence should reveal to us everything we need to know about the base argument/premise it is trying, in some way, to prove.

Teaspoon, I suggest looking at the archive section of the forum (top right) for a myriad of threads relating to Kalam, many of which contain fine debunking by some of our members.
lol, marquee. HTML ROOLZ!

Atheon

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on faulty premises:

QuotePremise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
There are uncaused events such as vacuum fluctuations.
QuotePremise 2: The universe had to began to exist
This needs to be demonstrated.

QuoteConclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist
If this is true, what makes this cause a god? It may have been a mindless fluctuation of something as yet unknown to us.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

Colanth

Quote from: "Atheon"
QuoteConclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist
If this is true, what makes this cause a god? It may have been a mindless fluctuation of something as yet unknown to us.
It's all based on the argument, "I assert that my particular god exists, therefore it exists".  That's pretty much the basis for all "arguments" for any god.  See http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm for more examples than you want.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Atheon

It also reeks of special pleading: "The universe had a start, but GAWD is different... he's eternal, don'tcha know... that makes him special..."
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca